- AA exported two horses to Norway, outside the EU customs territory.
- The horses were brought back to the EU through a border crossing from Norway to Sweden.
- AA did not stop at the customs post to declare the horses.
- She was stopped by the Tullverk (customs authority) after passing the customs post.
- The referring court (the Högsta förvaltningsdomstol (highest administrative court)) asks how Article 143(1)(e) of the VAT Directive and Article 86(6) of the Customs Code should be interpreted.
- The Advocate General (AG) Kokott suggests that the Court of Justice (CJEU) should answer the preliminary question as follows:
- Article 143(1)(e) of the VAT Directive only requires that the substantive conditions of Article 203 of the Customs Code are met.
- If a customs debt in the sense of Article 79 of the Customs Code arises only due to non-compliance with the obligation to make a customs declaration in accordance with Article 158(1) of the Customs Code and the obligation to present in accordance with Article 139(1) of the Customs Code or the missing request for exemption from import duties within the meaning of Article 203 of the Customs Code, the re-importation of returning goods as referred to in Article 203 of the Customs Code is exempt from VAT.
- For this reason, it is not relevant for the exemption from VAT on import within the meaning of Article 143(1)(e) of the VAT Directive whether the exception of Article 86(6) of the Customs Code applies (on the grounds of a missing attempt at fraud).
Source: nlfiscaal.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
