The ECJ released the preliminary ruling request in the case C-407/24 (VTL Vámügynökség Kft.)
Summary
- The case involves the determination of the customs value of plastic wallets imported from China into Hungary.
- The customs authority released the goods without examining them or the related documents but later conducted a post-release control.
- The customs authority requested necessary documents and declarations to determine the customs value, but the importer and the applicant did not fully comply.
- As a result, the customs authority determined the customs value by filtering the customs database and calculating the unit price of similar products, which was then multiplied by the total weight of the imported goods.
- The case raises questions regarding the interpretation of regulations related to the customs value determination process, including doubts about declared transaction value, exclusion of secondary valuation methods, and the customs authority’s practices in selecting and comparing goods from the national database.
Facts
- The main proceedings concern the determination of the customs value of 3 490 kg of goods, specifically plastic wallets, imported from China into Hungary in August 2019. Following their import, the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Délbudapesti Adó- és Vámigazgatósága (Tax and Customs Directorate for Budapest South, part of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary; ‘the first-tier customs authority’) decided to release the plastic wallets for free circulation, without examining either the goods or the documents relating thereto.
- Subsequently, in July 2021, during a post-release control, that customs authority examined whether the customs value of the products had been determined in accordance with the law and asked the applicant, an undertaking acting as indirect customs representative, and the importer to submit the necessary documents and make a declaration to determine the customs value. According to the first-tier customs authority, the importer and the applicant did not comply with that request in full, because it could not be demonstrated that the declared transaction value of the goods was genuine. Consequently, the customs authority determined the customs value in accordance with Article 144(2) of the Implementing Regulation, by filtering the customs database in order to calculate the unit price of similar products, which was multiplied by the total weight of the imported goods. On the basis of the customs value thus obtained, it ordered EU customs duty of HUF 953 600 to be charged.
- The applicant lodged an internal appeal against that decision with the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary; ‘the defendant’). The defendant confirmed the decision of the first-tier authority in so far as it referred to the imposition of EU customs duty. The applicant then brought the matter before the referring court.
Questions
- Must Article 140(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code 1 (‘the Implementing Regulation’) be interpreted as permitting – in the case of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics – a legal practice of the customs authorities whereby it is considered that there are reasonable doubts that the declared transaction value is the price actually paid or payable for the goods on the ground that – in spite of repeated requests by the customs authority – the taxable person has not provided proof of actual payment of the purchase price or of the transfer of the purchase price and has not made available to the customs authority the accounting entries relating to payment of the purchase price or the commercial correspondence relating to the transaction (quote, confirmation of the quote and order in Hungarian), and also on the ground that payment of the declared transaction value has not been confirmed by the depository institution for the account?
- If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority whereby the use of the secondary methods provided for in Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of the Customs Code is also excluded on the ground that it is not possible to apply them because the taxable person has not provided information regarding the essential characteristics of the goods (physical characteristics, quality, reputation)?
- If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, does the fact that the customs authority – in spite of having been able to do so – has not made use of the power to take samples of the goods, which would have allowed it to know their characteristics, exclude the application of the secondary methods provided for in Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of the Customs Code?
- If the answer to the second and third questions referred is in the affirmative, must Article 74(3) of the Customs Code be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority whereby that authority applies the method for determining the customs value provided for in Article 144(2) of the Implementing Regulation when it does not know the characteristics (physical characteristics, quality, reputation) of the goods to be valued, because the taxable person has not provided information regarding those characteristics in spite of repeated requests by the customs authority?
- If the answer to the fourth question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 74(3) of the Customs Code be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority whereby that authority applies the method for determining the customs value provided for in Article 144(2) of the Implementing Regulation, without having made use – in spite of having been able to do so – of the power to take samples of the goods, which would have allowed it to know their characteristics (physical characteristics, quality, reputation)?
- If the answer to the fourth question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 144(2) of the Implementing Regulation be interpreted as permitting the customs authority to determine the customs value to be the simple arithmetic mean of the unit price per kilogram of goods selected by filtering the national customs database for data relating to goods released for free circulation on the date of acceptance of the customs declaration and in the 90 preceding days and having the same TARIC code as the bulk goods undergoing the control, which do not have individual or special characteristics, where only the name, TARIC code and country of origin (China) of the goods undergoing the control is known, the customs authority does not have any information regarding the essential characteristics (physical characteristics, quality, reputation) of the goods to be valued and the taxable person has not provided any information other than the name of the goods and the TARIC code, in spite of repeated requests by the customs authority?
- If the answer to the fourth question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 22(7) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority, as regards interpretation and application, whereby that authority confines itself to stating in its decision that it has selected from the national database, in accordance with the criteria which it has stated and applied, goods imported from the same country and having the same TARIC code as the goods undergoing the customs control, without also providing a record of the steps taken to filter and restrict the database in order to determine the customs value of the goods undergoing the customs control?
- Must Article 22(7) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority whereby the taxable person is informed, with regard to the comparison, of the results of filtering the national database for goods imported from the same country and having the same TARIC code as the goods undergoing the customs control, in such a way that the electronic document produced by the customs authority and recording the data set used is drawn up in a format (MS Excel spreadsheet) in which any changes made by the customs authority cannot be checked and, where appropriate, corrected subsequently?
- Must Article 22(7) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as permitting a practice of the customs authority whereby the taxable person is informed, with regard to the comparison, of the results of filtering the national database for goods imported from the same country and having the same TARIC code as the goods undergoing the customs control, in such a way that the decision does not contain the comparison data considered in the valuation, but rather those data are made available to the taxable person as an inseparable annex to the decision?
Source
