Summary
- Preliminary Ruling Request: The Court of Appeal in Den Bosch, Netherlands, referred a case to the ECJ on 30 December 2024 regarding excise duty competence, published on 17 March 2025.
- Case Background: A Belgian company transporting ethyl alcohol to the Netherlands under an excise duty suspension discovered a shortfall upon arrival, leading Dutch customs to levy excise duty, which the company contested.
- Competing Claims: Both Dutch and Belgian authorities claimed entitlement to the excise duty, leading to a dispute over which Member State should collect the duty based on the irregularity’s timing.
- Directive Interpretation: The case centers on interpreting Article 10(2) and Article 10(4) of Council Directive 2008/118 concerning whether the duty should be collected by the Member State of arrival or dispatch based on when the shortfall was detected.
Questions
Is Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC 1 of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC 2 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled in a case where the goods moved under the duty suspension arrangement have not arrived, or have not arrived in their entirety, at their destination, and that shortfall has not been detected until the means of transport was unloaded, so that that detection of the shortfall constitutes the irregularity and the Member State of arrival therefore has the competence to levy the duty? Or is the earlier event, which remains unknown, which led to the shortfall to be regarded as the irregularity referred to in Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC, so that the Member State of dispatch has the competence to levy the duty?
Source
