30.6.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 194/7
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, Belgium) — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistiek Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat
(Case C-333/11) (1)
(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - TIR Convention - Community Customs Code - Excise duties - Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet - Unlawful unloading - Determination of the place of the offence - Recovery of customs and excise duties - Jurisdiction)
2012/C 194/12
Language of the case: Netherlands
Referring court
Hof van Cassatie van België
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistiek Dienstverleners (Febetra)
Defendant: Belgische Staat
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 454(3), second subparagraph, of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 253, p. 1), of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) and of Article 37 of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) — Offences or irregularities — Place of the offence or irregularity — Place deemed to be where the offence or irregularity is detected, where it is impossible to determine the place where it was committed
Operative part of the order
1.
Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999 of 28 July 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a guaranteeing association may prove the place where an offence or irregularity was committed by relying on the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and/or where the seals were affixed. If that association succeeds in reversing the presumption of jurisdiction of the customs authorities of the Member State on the territory of which an offence or irregularity was detected in the course of transport under cover of a TIR carnet in favour of those of the Member State on the territory of which that offence or irregularity was actually committed — which is for the referring court to determine — the customs authorities of that latter State assume jurisdiction to recover the customs debt.
2.
Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member State on the territory of which the goods were discovered, seized and confiscated enjoy jurisdiction to recover the excise duty, even if those goods were introduced into the territory of the European Union in another Member State, in so far as those goods are held for commercial purposes, which is for the referring court to establish.
(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy