Case Summary: C-844/24
Court: Cour d’appel de Liège, Belgium
Date Lodged: 14 November 2024
Parties Involved:
- Appellants: Belgian State (SPF Finances), Ministère public
- Respondents: ECDC Logistics SA, Soda Trading IM-&Export SPRL, and several individuals (KL, HM, ZD, RX)
Context:
The case involves allegations against ECDC Logistics SA and others for submitting incorrect customs declarations that undervalued goods imported from China between April and September 2019. The accusations stemmed from a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) indicating suspicious activities related to undervalued imports of textiles and footwear.
Charges:
The accused are charged with making 276 incorrect customs declarations, which were accompanied by false commercial invoices. The customs values declared were reported to be significantly lower than the average values for similar goods.
Judicial Proceedings:
Initially, the Court of First Instance of Liège acquitted the accused of all criminal charges, declaring the claims of the Belgian State as admissible but unfounded in civil proceedings. The Belgian State appealed the acquittal, questioning the findings of guilt, sentencing, and decisions on civil actions.
Key Legal Issues:
- Competence of Prosecution: The accused argued that the alleged offences affected the financial interests of the EU, which would require the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) to take over the prosecution. However, the proceedings were initiated before the EPPO’s competence came into effect.
- Customs Valuation Methods: The customs administration’s use of statistical data (from the MADB/Access2Markets database) to determine customs values was challenged. The court sought clarification on whether this method complied with EU customs law and whether it affected the rights of the accused.
Preliminary Questions for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): The court referred several questions to the CJEU regarding:
- The compliance of using statistical methods for customs valuation with EU law.
- The implications for individual rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when statistical data is used in criminal proceedings.
- The appropriate statistical references for customs valuation when goods are processed in different Member States.
This case highlights significant issues related to customs fraud, the adequacy of prosecution by national authorities versus the EPPO, and the challenges surrounding the use of statistical data in customs valuation.
Questions
Does a competent customs authority which uses an essentially statistical method, based on the European database Access2Markets/MADB, to determine the customs value of imports of goods which it considers to be undervalued comply with the sequential methods laid down in Articles 70 and 74 of the Union Customs Code and, in particular, the method known as the ‘last resort’ or ‘reasonable means’, provided for in Article 74(3) of that code, which consists in determining the customs value of the goods concerned on the basis of ‘data available’ – which must be neither aggregated nor confidential – in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 144 of the Implementing Regulation?
If so, does the use of a European statistical database, such as Access2Markets/MADB, which gathers data collected within the European Union, to assess the customs value of goods in accordance with the method of ‘last resort’ or ‘reasonable means’ provided for in Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code comply with the guarantees afforded to individuals under Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when, in criminal proceedings brought solely on the initiative of Customs and Excise, those individuals are obliged to defend themselves in the light of statistical data, on the one hand and when, on the other, the applicable national criminal law provides for a penalty consisting of a fine of between five and ten times the duties evaded, which are themselves determined on the basis of statistical data?
If goods are released for free circulation in one Member State but released for consumption in another Member State, must the competent customs authority, if it is entitled to value the goods on the basis of statistics, take as its reference the statistical value by using national data determining the customs value of goods covered by the same TARIC code or by applying a European Union database which gathers and aggregates the statistics collected by each Member State?
Source
