On October 8, 2020, the ECJ gave its decision in Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v. Combinova AB (C-476/19)
Summary
In the Combinova case (C-476/19), the European Court of Justice clarified a key concept from article 124 UCC on the extinction of a customs debt. One of the conditions for the extinction a customs debt, is namely that the goods have not been used or consumed within the customs territory of the European Union. The UCC did previously not provide a definition on the term ‘used’. The dispute of this case centered around the question whether a customs debt could still be extinguished after the goods had been put under an authorized Inward Processing Procedure (‘IPP’).
There were two diverging interpretation of the term ‘have not been used’. First of all, ‘used’ could entail any use of goods which goes beyond authorized processing operations. Secondly, ‘use’ could also include use in accordance with authorized processing operations.
The ECJ concluded that the term ‘use’ in article 124 UCC must be interpreted as ‘use that goes beyond authorized processing operation’, which entails that putting goods under an IPP doesn’t impede the extinction of a customs debt
Decision
Article 124(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the use of the goods referred to in that provision concerns only use which goes beyond the processing operations authorised by the customs authority under the inward processing procedure provided for in Article 256 of that code, and not use in accordance with those authorised processing operations
Source Curia
