Similar content

Knowing how provisions of one or another customs and tax legislation are applied, protects business from financial and time losses intended for the resolution of disputes in courts. In this review … of the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, we draw attention to the aspects related to excise duty and VAT debt for goods illegally imported into the EU from the third countries - whether it is extinguished together with the import duty debt.

This article looks what the ECJ decided in its recent Case C-714/20 (U.I.). In addition, the article will analyse this case in light of the previous ECJ cases on similar matters. It also touches … upon the deductibility of the import VAT by the forwarders and carriers. Finally, the article looks at the practical implications of this case for the EU, particularly the Netherlands and some other EU Member States.

According to Article 18 of the Union Customs Code (UCC), the customs representative may carry out customs formalities by direct or indirect representation. Regardless of the method of representation … chosen, the representation contract remains a mandate contract, which obliges the importer to guarantee the customs representative the payment of import duties and taxes incurred by the operation. The choice of the mode of representation, on the other hand, is important when the importer has disappeared (or become insolvent) and has left the customs representative alone to deal with customs. Indeed, if the representative has acted as an indirect representative, the administration can claim payment of the entire debt from him... except perhaps in the case of VAT, because, according to the CJEU, solidarity in VAT matters is not automatically established.

In business practice, the customs authorities often recover from the traders (business entities) (or sometimes – refuse to pay to these persons) various duties, charges, levies, or sanctions … administered by them, even though such recovery or refusing to pay them at the later date may be declared illegal, contrary to the EU law, e.g. by national courts. Accordingly, in such a situation the question arises whether such wrongly recovered and/or paid sums (customs duties, other charges, penalties) administered by the customs authorities in the EU Member States must be repaid together with additionally calculated interest for the period during which the person concerned was unlawfully deprived of the relevant sums of money? The article analyses how such issues should be addressed in the light of recent case law of the European Court of Justice (CJEU).

‘Compliance’ with statute law has given rise to a lot of publications and debates. However, when considering compliance, it should not be forgotten that case law also influences a company’s organisation … and processes. Can you think of any court cases which are having an effect on your internal operations? Using the current proceedings on ‘reimbursement interest’ as an example, this contribution shows that court rulings can influence customs practice in companies and so it is important that you follow court proceedings from the outset. This is because even pending proceedings may enable you to earn money with customs or at least avoid throwing it away. Court judgements do not always operate to the detriment of the economic participant.

Both in the practice of tax disputes and during tax inspections or investigations carried out by the customs authorities, the following question arises quite often: which particular person the … customs authorities are entitled to qualify as the debtor and, accordingly, to calculate (to that or another particular person) the additional import taxes. In this article, we will review the provisions of the EU Union Customs Code (UCC) and the relevant case-law of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU), which helps to answer these questions and allows businesses to defend their rights and legitimate interests in disputed situations.