News from customs and foreign trade

On 17 May 2023, the EU Commission published the biggest reform of customs law since the founding of the customs union in 1968, which came as a surprise to many! As announced, our experts Anne Goullon, Stefan Krinner and Dominik Peter have conducted an in-depth analysis of the reform proposals. We have summarised the results for you in four short video contributions that deal with the different areas of the reform. So, have fun with the videos! I'm already looking forward to your feedback and the professional exchange! All you need to do is register for free on our learning platform. https://pasani-academy.knowledgeworker.rocks/?action=registration&voucher=pasani_LI_Zollrechtsreform&design=pasani-academy

The European Court of Justice has delivered an important judgement for economic operators in the preliminary ruling on Case C-496/19. In this case, the claimant imported garden pavilions from China in 2011, some of which were made of iron and some of which were made of aluminium. It declared both variants under tariff heading 6306 1200 00, which provides for an import duty of 12%. However, after an internal examination, the applicant took the view that the garden pavilions with iron construction should be classified under tariff heading 7308 9099 00, which provides for a duty rate of 0%, and those with aluminium construction should be classified under tariff heading 7610 9099 00, at a duty rate of 6%. Accordingly, the applicant submitted two applications to the competent customs office. One request for a subsequent review of the customs declaration in accordance with Art. 78 CC (Note: old version) and another for a refund of the excess import duties paid. The customs authority rejected these applications. The plaintiff challenged these decisions before the competent court (Provincial Tax Commission of Salerno, Italy). Before this court of first instance, the customs office justified its decision on the grounds that, firstly, it was not obliged to grant the request for review submitted to it and, secondly, that the tariff item taken into account was correct. With regard to the request for review, it stated that an import of the same type had been the subject of a physical inspection and that this had not been objected to by the customs agent representing the applicant in the main proceedings. The Court of First Instance essentially adopted this reasoning and dismissed the action as unfounded. The plaintiff appealed against this decision. In the proceedings at second instance, the Court of First Instance referred the following question for a preliminary ruling: "Does the physical examination of goods carried out in the course of importation preclude the initiation of a procedure for the review of a customs determination under Article 78 of the Customs Code?" By its question, the court asks whether Article 78 of the Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding a possible review of the customs declaration if the goods in question were subjected to a physical examination during a previous importation without objection, which confirmed their tariff classification. The European Court of Justice ultimately answered the question referred as follows: "Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the initiation of the procedure for verification of the customs declaration provided for therein, even if the goods in question have undergone a physical check confirming their tariff classification on a previous importation without objection." The court therefore clarifies that a physical inspection of the goods carried out during importation does not per se preclude the initiation of a procedure to verify the customs declaration in accordance with Art. 78 of the Customs Code. You can find the full judgement here. Source: EUR-LEX