Case C-300/03

Honeywell Aerospace GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Gießen

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel)

(Community transit – Incurring of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities – Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 20 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Free movement of goods – Community transit – External Community transit – Offences or irregularities – Failure to notify the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place where the offence occurred – Effect on incurring of a customs debt – Lack – Effect on the recovery of the customs debt

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 203(1); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 379)

Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 379 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt has been incurred where a consignment placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been presented at the customs office of destination and the failure to notify to the principal the period in which the proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence was actually committed may be furnished to the office of departure does not prevent the customs debt being incurred. That notification nevertheless constitutes a prerequisite for the recovery of the customs debt by the customs authorities, so that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may take steps to recover the debt only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to furnish the proof requested and such proof has not been provided within that period.

(see paras 23, 26, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 20 January 2005 (1)

(Community transit – Incurring of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities – Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)

In Case C-300/03, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), made by decision of 25 April 2003, received at the Court on 11 July 2003, in the proceedings

v

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),,

composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

having regard to the written procedure,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

‘1.

2.‘1.

…’

‘1.

2.‘1.

2.

3.‘Communication to the debtor shall not take place after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred. However, where it is as a result of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings that the customs authorities were unable to determine the exact amount legally due, such communication may, in so far as the provisions in force so allow, be made after the expiry of such three-year period.’

‘1.

unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.

2.‘1.

2.On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) rules as follows:

[Signatures]