DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION
Customs Policy
Customs Procedures
Brussels, 30 November 2009
taxud.c.4/9113/2009
Subject:Summary record of the 145th Customs Code Committee – Customs status and Transit Section of 5-6 November 2009
1.Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted, subject to the addition of one point under AoB at the request of a MS.
I.Items regarding the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (current Community Customs Code)
A.Draft measures submitted for the approval of the Committee:
- European Maritime Transport Space without barriers – regular shipping service (Doc. TAXUD/2012/2009 Rev. 4)
One delegation announced that in the event of a vote, it would represent another. COM noted that two other MS were absent and not represented.
COM said that the proposal contained pragmatic solutions which should greatly help short sea shipping (SSS). The industry had been satisfied by the explanations it had received and now supported the proposal.
Following discussion, the following changes were agreed:
Article 313b
The text of paragraph 2(b) was replaced by “fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 14h” in order to harmonise it with other provisions governing the granting of authorisations.
In paragraph 3 (and throughout the text) references to the authorities were changed to “the authorising customs authorities” and “the corresponding customs authorities”, as appropriate.
In the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 the opening phrase was amended to read “Where no reply or refusal is received ...”, whilea new phrase was added specifying that also in this case, the authorising customs authorities may issue the authorisation only after examining that the conditions for it were met.
Article 313c
In line with the terminology of the modernised Customs Code, the words “withdrawal” and “withdrawn” were replaced by “revocation” and “revoked”.
Article 313d
To ensure a more logical presentation, this was moved after Article 313e. In addition, it was specified that only subsequent Community ports of call need to be informed.
Article 313f
It was specified in paragraph 2 that it concerns failings by the shipping company.
Point 4 (Article 317a(2))
COM said that given the light of discussions in another section, this point was premature and therefore withdrawn.
Article 324e
COM confirmed that presentation of a paper manifest should be the exception, not the rule, provided customs has accepted access to the relevant information system.
Article 2
Several MS pointed out that a pragmatic approach should be taken to existing authorisations, given that the new rules were less stringent than the old. However, it was agreed that they should be incorporated in the electronic data-base after it became available.
Article 3
As the Regulation must contain a fixed date of application, and taking into account informatic needs, it was agreed that the new Regular Shipping Service rules should apply from 1 January 2012. One MS expressed concern about the extra work for IT developers and doubted that this was an adequate time period.
Result of vote
Subject to the changes mentioned above, the Committee then proceeded to vote. All delegations present or represented gave a favourable opinion on the draft regulation.
B.Other questions to be examined by the Committee:
3.US-CPA initiative to computerise NATO form 302 (Doc. TAXUD/2003/2009 Rev. 2)
COM highlighted the following points:
-the intention was to allow the military of all NATO partners the choice between the existing paper form and lodging the data electronically. It could not be left to the discretion of MS, because there must be uniform treatment;
- since the Code referred only to goods moving under cover of NATO form 302, the provision could also cover Partnership for Peace countries;
- the paper form should prevail in the event that both paper and electronic versions existed and there was a conflict;
- the form could not be attached to the regulation because its appearance varied from one partner to another. However, its content was always the same;
- COM had prepared a transposition table showing how the form 302 data could be captured in the NCTS/ICS/ECS systems. It appeared that there were few problem areas. The ECG would be consulted in due course, but the purpose of the table and of the discussion was first to build as convincing a case as possible.
One MS asked if COM was aware of NATO looking into the possibility of creating an electronic version of the form. COM replied that it would look into the matter.
Several MS pointed out that while they were generally favourable to computerisation, even a small adjustment of NCTS would have significant resource implications for them. One said that because of this, it could accept the change only in the context of wider changes to NCTS ("bundle"). Several pointed out that the number of form 302 declarations they processed was very low.
In response to a question about the designation of competent offices, COM replied that this was entirely a matter for the customs authorities of the MS. They could designate a single office, or several.
Some MS asked for clarification as regards whether paper or electronic data prevailed. COM replied that this had been inserted at the request of MS, because while there could only be one customs declaration, it appeared that there were cases where, even though the data had been lodged electronically, for other reasons a paper form would also exist.
One MS pointed out that the text did not cater for visiting forces.
One MS said that if an electronic form 302 procedure was not discharged, there would be an enquiry procedure and a burden on the transporter. COM replied that the difficulties with undischarged procedures already existed with the paper form and that the position of transporters was the same under either system. Another MS pointed out that with an electronic procedure, the authorities would be aware of problems more quickly.
COM noted the reservations expressed by MS and will reflect further on the matter.
4.Co-ordination regarding items on the agenda of the 136th meeting of the EC-EFTA working group
The Committee considered that the draft agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the EC-EFTA Joint Committees was acceptable. However, one MS mentioned some problems concerning exports of Community goods via CH, in case the matter should come up.
COM pointed out that in relation to the working group agenda item on customs seals, a key question would be how seals should be marked and what should be on them.
II.Items regarding the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (Modernised Customs Code)
A.Draft measures submitted for the approval of the Committee:
5.None
B.Other questions to be examined by the Committee:
6.Implementing provisions of the modernised Customs Code:
- Customs Status and Transit (Doc. TAXUD/1639/2006 Rev. 9)
- Customs debt and guarantees (Doc. TAXUD/1705/2008 EN – Rev. 2)
Document TAXUD/1639/2006 Rev. 9
COM said that certain elements, for example definitions, could be moved to general provisions. One MS thought that the content of the current Article 457d(1) was missing. COM said that this was one example of a point already transferred to general provisions.
With regard to Article 722-04, COM recalled that Article 1 of the modernised Code required that simplified procedures be applied to the "special territories" and that this is considered separately. One MS announced that it was prepared to host a meeting with the other MS concerned on this subject.
One MS felt that Article 722-15(4) could be useful, especially for the express parcels sector, but wondered how incidents in transit would be dealt with if there were no TAD. Other MS expressed the same concern. COM agreed there was a need for caution, but thought the risk was limited as only authorised consignors were concerned and the operator had to be able to produce it if asked. One MS suggested replacing "the documents" by "the information", as it would not necessarily be on paper. Another MS wondered how the office of destination could know that another office en route had asked for the document. COM observed that it was in the interest of the trader to be able to show at destination that all formalities had been observed, while one MS argued that operators would stay in line because they knew that the authorisation could be withdrawn. COM said that it would continue to reflect on matters.
With regard to Article 721-21(2),one MS did not see the need for traders to request alternative proof when everything was in order and in the system, although it acknowledged that it could be useful in the fallback procedure. One MS said that trade did want it, although it should be limited to exceptional cases. COM asked MS to check whether traders regularly ask for alternative proof or not, now there is a long experience with the functioning of the computerised system.
With regard to Article 722-25,one MS said that the trade wanted consistency, and referred to the content of Regulation No. 312/2009. COM said that it was necessary to look at the use of alternative proof by traders, but that the differences mentioned arose largely from national taxation issues.
One MS repeated a suggestion it had made at the 141st meeting to replace "may prescribe" by "shall prescribe" in Article 722-33(3)(d). COM referred to the ongoing work of the working group on customs seals and said that it was necessary to avoid making too burdensome demands on authorised consignors.
Some MS wondered why road transport had been included in Article 722-39, when road transporters were able to use the standard procedure without difficulty. COM replied that the intention was to promote inter-modality, and that it should be examined if less data can suffice for authorised transit principals. COM said that this is a wider debate on what data were actually needed, but also noted that changes to electronic systems in order to implement the modernised Code implementing provisions were inevitable, regardless of the provisions of Article 733-39.
An EFTA country referred to the fallback procedure for T2M. Stamps and endorsement were required, but the T2M was not included in the Convention. COM acknowledged that the catch was sometimes landed in a third country, but if the T2M were put into the Convention it would have to go into all international agreements and this would be impossible. Therefore to the T2M contained a field for non-EU countries to fill in and the EU continues to rely on the cooperation of third countries.
MS also pointed out a number of cross-references to be corrected.
Document TAXUD/1705/2008 EN – Rev. 2
COM recalled thedifference in structure compared to the current Code. Some provisions were in a general section, but for others regard must had to the specific section on transit. It also pointed out that the Danube and its waterways as well as fixed installations had now been added to Article 321-02 and that while Article 321-04 did not include cash deposit for transit, this was to be found later in the text.
One MS considered that pipelines should also be specified in Article 321-02. The same MS noted that Articles 322-02 and 323-03 seemed to imply that there could be duties on Community goods.
One MS considered it unjust that immovable property could not be used as security in transit, and that this would lead to increased administrative and financial costs for business. However, some other MS questioned whether such guarantees were practical and thought they would be burdensome for administrations. The first MS replied that it did not want to force anyone else to use such guarantees, but considered that it should not be prevented from doing so.
With regard to section 2 on the comprehensive guarantee, COM noted that the guarantee waiver was omitted, which should be verified. Section 3 was largely unchanged, but paper certificates might be moved to the general part.
An EFTA country said that the sequence of events in Article 323-1-09 was unclear. The same country also called for a generous transitional period for the issue of new guarantee certificates.
MS also pointed out a number of cross-references to be corrected.
COM said that it will continue to look at guarantee waivers and the question of adapting the comprehensive guarantee to cover both compulsory and optional guarantees. It will report all comments and questions to colleagues dealing with customs debt. There will be a further discussion at the next meeting.
C.A.O.B.
EORI in the transit procedure
One MS said that there could be a problem when the EORI number was entered in box 8, because it would generally relate only to the company headquarters of the principal, not necessarily the place where the goods were located. It suggested that this information should be indicated in box 44.
COM said that if the recipient was an authorised consignee, the location should be separately identified in box 30, while a MS pointed out that the location of the goods would always be listed in the approval. Another MS pointed out that it was the responsibility of the operator to tell customs where the goods were.
Annex
Meeting of THE CUSTOMS CODE COMMITTEE
SECTION CUSTOMS STATUS AND TRANSIT
HELD IN BRUSSELS ON 5-6 NOVEMBER 2009
List of Participants – Liste des participants - Teilnehmerliste
Delegations of the Member States; les représentants des Etats membres;
Vertreter der Mitgliedstaaten
BELGIE/BELGIQUE
SPF Finances (Douanes et accises)
BULGARIA
-
CZECH REPUBLIC
General Directorate of Customs
DENMARK
Danish Tax and Customs Administration
GERMANY
Bundesministerium der Finanzen
ESTONIA
Tax and Customs Board
ELLAS
Greek customs Administration
ESPAGNE
Departamento Aduanas
FRANCE
Ministère du budget - DGDDI
IRELAND
Permanent Representation
ITALIA
Agenzia delle Dogane
CYPRUS
Department of Customs and Excise
LATVIA
State Revenue Service – National Customs Board
LITHUANIA
Customs Department
LUXEMBOURG
-
HUNGARY
Ministry of Finance
MALTA
-
NEDERLAND
Ministerie v. financiën
ÖSTERREICH
Bundesministerium für Finanzen
POLAND
Ministry of Finance
PORTUGAL
Ministerio das finanças
ROMANIA
Autorité nationale des douanes
SLOVENIA
General Customs Administration
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Customs Directorate
SUOMI / FINLAND
National Board of Customs
SWEDEN
Swedish Customs
UNITED KINGDOM
H.M. Revenue and Customs
Representatives of the EFTA countries:
SWITZERLAND (İtem B.6 only).
Customs Administration
NORWAY (İtem B.6 only)
Directorate of Customs and Excise
Representatives of the observer countries to the EC-EFTA Working Group on "Common Transit" and the "Simplification of Formalities in Trade in Goods":
CROATIA (İtem B.6 only).
Customs Administration
SERBIA (İtem B.6 only)
Mission to EU
BELARUS (İtem B.6 only)
Mission to EU
State Customs Committee
The Commission services - les services de la Commission - - Die Kommissionsdienststellen :
Mr L. KUHNEN (Présidence - Chair - Vorsitz)TAXUD/C-4
Mr M. RATHJETAXUD/C-4
Mr R. LIGHTTAXUD/C-4
Mr D. THEOLOGITISTREN.G2 (Point B.2 only)
Mr P. NORROYTREN.G2 (Point B.2 only)