(Judgment) Article 6 (1) of the Directive was designed to establish the point in time at which the excise duty becomes actually chargeable, but not to determine the person from whom the duty should be claimed. Any production, processing, holding or circulation outside a suspension arrangement gives rise to the chargeability of the excise duty. In those circumstances, once it is established before the national court that such a product has departed from a suspension arrangement without the excise duty having been paid, it is clear that the holding of the product in question constitutes release for consumption within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Directive and that the duty has become chargeable.
C-325/99, [2001] EUECJ C-325/99, [2001] ECR I-2729.
Bailii
Council Directive 92/12/EEC 6(1)
European
Cited by:
Cited – Greenalls Management Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 26-Jun-2003
The appellant operated an approved storage facility, holding alcoholic drinks. Drinks were to be exported, and were released on that basis. They were later diverted and sold within the UK market, evading the appropriate duty. The company appealed a . .
Cited – Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 August 2021; Ref: scu.162771