Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Customs and Excise - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft (Common Customs Tariff ) R-72/69; [1970] EUECJ R-72/69
18 Jun 1970
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ 1. The interpretation of one tariff heading in relation to another must, in a case of doubt, take into account both the function of the customs tariff in regard to the necessities of the systems of organization of the markets and its purely customs function.
2. The expression "manioc flours" within the meaning of article 1(d) of regulation no 19, read in conjunction with heading no 11.06 of the common customs tariff, mentioned in the annex to that regulation, refers to all farinaceous substances obtained from manioc roots, irrespective of the treatment which those roots may have undergone, where the product has a starch content in excess of 40 per cent.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gervais-Danone AG v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Schwanthalerstrasse C-77/71
15 Dec 1971
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Common customs tariff - description of goods - interpretation - absence of community provisions - authority of explanatory notes and classification opinions of the convention on the Brussels nomenclature. Common customs tariff - description of goods - classification of a product under tariff heading 21.07 - regulation no 241/70 of the commission - legislative nature - no retroactive effect. Common customs tariff - description of goods - classification of a product under tariff heading 21.04 - criteria - discretion of the national court (regulation no 950/68 of the council). Common customs tariff - entry into force - no effect on the binding customs tariff notices within the meaning of article 23 of the German Zollgesetz (regulation no 950/68 of the council, article 1)

 
Derrick v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1972] 1 All ER 993
1972


Customs and Excise



 
 Guenter Henck v Hauptzollamt Emden. (Common Customs Tariff ); ECJ 23-Mar-1972 - R-36/71; [1972] EUECJ R-36/71

 
 Georg Brunner Kg v Hauptzollamt Hof; ECJ 4-Oct-1972 - C-9/72; R-9/72; [1972] EUECJ R-9/72
 
Arend van de Poll KG v Hauptzollamt Trier (Judgment) C-38/72
14 Dec 1972
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa 1. Common customs tariff - tariff classification - heading 23.07 -interpretation (regulations nos 19/62 and 55/62) 2. Common customs tariff - tariff classification - criteria - application -jurisdiction of the national court
1. Heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff, to which reference is made in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of 4 April 1962 and in article 12 of regulation no 55 of 30 June 1962 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption. 2. Practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the common customs tariff are a matter for the national courts.
In case 38/72 reference to the court under article 177 of the EEC treaty by the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland-palatinate) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between arend van de poll kg, having its registered office in cologne, and hauptzollamt trier (head customs office, trier)
on the interpretation of article 1 (d) of and of the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals, of article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products and of regulation no 178/64 of the commission of 12 November 1964 on the amount of and conditions governing premiums on denaturing of wheat and rye,
1 by order of 3 may 1972, registered at the court of 28 June 1972, the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland - palatinate) referred, in pursuance of article 177 of the EEC treaty, a number of questions on the interpretation of heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff - in the version in force at the time when the event occurred -referred to in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals (jo 1962, p. 933) and article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products (jo 1962, p. 1583). It is clear from the order making the reference that these questions were put in the context of a dispute concerning the classification, with a view to the application of intra-community levies, of a product composed mainly of common wheat, mixed with barley and oats and containing a small additional amount of cod liver oil. 2 according to the plaintiff in the main action this product falls under heading 23.07 (" preparations of a kind used in animal feeding "), whereas the customs administration, the defendant in the main action, claims that it should be classified under heading 10.01 of the customs tariff (" wheat and meslin "). 3 the essential purpose of the questions put to the court is to ascertain : - whether, provided that the correct proportions are used, such a mixture of itself constitutes a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding, within the meaning of heading 23.07 (questions 1 and 2); if not - whether such a " preparation " is obtained when the product contains, in addition to a mixture of cereals, other ingredients which may be considered as animal food materials (questions 3 and 4); if not - whether a mixture of cereals such as that in question in the present dispute may be considered to be a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding where a denaturing agent has been added in sufficient quantity, either to the mixture as a whole or to its principal ingredient, and if cod liver oil or fish oil can be used for this purpose (questions 5 and 8). 4 the terms of heading 23.07, with which this dispute is concerned, read as follows in the annex to regulation no 19 : " animal food preparations including sweetened forage; other preparations used in animal feeding (additives etc.): b. Containing cereals or containing products covered by the present regulation ". This heading, in the context of the customs tariff, constitutes a specific category, relating not to random combinations of cereals, with or without the addition of other substances, but to forage produced for use in animal feeding. 5 this explanation is supported by the explanatory notes to the Brussels nomenclature relating to heading 23.07, in which it is stated that " this heading excludes :... (B) simple mixtures of cereal grains... (C) preparations which, when account is taken, in particular, of the nature, purity and proportions of the components, the hygiene requirements complied with during manufacture and, where appropriate, the indications given on the packaging or any other information concerning their use, can be used indifferently for feeding animals or as human food ". These notes permit two distinct criteria to be deduced : first, from the particular use to which the product is to be put as forage and, secondly, from the impossibility of using the same product for human consumption. 6 in particular, it appears from the above that the addition of a denaturing agent to a mixture of cereals does not bring the product within the classification of heading 23.07 if, on the other hand, the product is not capable of being used specifically as forage for cattle. 7 practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the customs tariff are a matter for the national courts. That is true, in fact, of all matters concerning the composition of cereal mixtures and the proportions of different cereals used, the nature and proportion of other additional nutrients and the nature of and method of applying the products used to render foods unfit for human consumption. 8 accordingly, in reply to the questions referred, heading 23.07 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption.


 
 Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners; HL 26-Jun-1973 - [1974] AC 133; [1973] 3 WLR 164; [1973] 2 All ER 943; [1973] UKHL 6; [1974] RPC 101; [1973] FSR 365

 
 Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson Gmbh; ECJ 12-Jul-1973 - C-8/73; R-8/73; [1973] EUECJ R-8/73
 
Fratelli Variola Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-34/73; R-34/73; [1973] EUECJ R-34/73; [1973] ECR 981
10 Oct 1973
ECJ

European, European, Customs and Excise
Europa The concept of "charge having equivalent effect" under the agricultural regulations must be taken to have the same meaning as in articles 9 et seq . Of the treaty.
The prohibition of all customs duties and charges having equivalent effect covers any charge levied at the time or by reason of importation and which, specifically affecting the imported product and not the home-produced product, has the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as a customs duty.
Accordingly, a charge imposed exclusively on imported goods because they have been unloaded in home ports constitutes a "charge having equivalent effect" and is prohibited.
Owing to its very nature and its place in the system of sources of community law, a regulation has immediate effect and, consequently, operates to confer rights on private parties which the national courts have a duty to protect.
The direct application of a regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law.
A legislative provision of national law reproducing the content of a directly applicable rule of community law can in no way affect direct applicability, or the court' s jurisdiction under the treaty.
In the absence of valid provision to the contrary, repeal of a regulation does not mean abolition of the private rights it created.
A legislative provision of internal law cannot be set up against the direct application, in the legal order of member states, of regulations of the community and other provisions of community law without compromising the essential character of community rules and the fundamental principle that the community legal system is supreme.
This is particularly true as regards the date from which the community rule becomes operative and creates rights in favour of private parties.
The freedom of member states, without express authority, to vary the date on which a community rule comes into force is excluded by reason of the need to ensure uniform and simultaneous application of community law throughout the community.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Rewe Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer Westphalen-Lippe; ECJ 11-Oct-1973 - C-39/73; [1976] ECR 1989

 
 Criminal proceedings against Giulio et Adriano Grosoli; ECJ 12-Dec-1973 - C-131/73; R-131/73; [1973] EUECJ R-131/73
 
Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v NV Indiamex et Association de fait De Belder C-37/73
13 Dec 1973
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa In answering the question as to the application of charges having equivalent effect in trade with third countries, account must be taken both of the requirements resulting from the establishment of the common customs tariff, and of those resulting from a common commercial policy, within the meaning of articles 110 to 116 of the treaty, which, according to article 3 (b) of the treaty, regulates trade arrangements with third countries. The definition of the uniform principles upon which the common commercial policy is based involves, as does the common tariff itself, the elimination of national disparities, whether in the field of taxation or of commerce, affecting trade with third countries. It is for the commission or the council to evaluate these requirements in each case both as regards the establishment of the common customs tariff and the adoption of the common commercial policy. The member states may not, subsequent to the establishment of the common customs tariff, introduce, in a unilateral manner, new charges on goods imported directly from third countries or raise the level of those in existence at that time. As regards charges already in existence, prior evaluation by the community authorities is necessary in order to establish their incompatibility with the treaty and the obligation to eliminate them. It follows that such charges may only be considered to be incompatible with community law pursuant to provisions adopted by the community.

 
Industria Gomma Articoli Vari Igav v Ente Nazionale Per La Cellulosa E Per La Carta Encc R-94/74; [1975] EUECJ R-94/74
18 Jun 1975
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa The prohibition contained in article 13(2) is aimed at any tax demanded at the time or by reason of importation and which, being imposed specifically on an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, results in the same restrictive consequences on the free movement of goods as a customs duty by altering the cost price of that product.
This prohibition attaches solely to the effect of such a fiscal charge and not to the manner in which it is imposed; the fact that the duty is levied by an independent institution governed by public law rather than by the state itself has no effect on its definition.
A duty falling within a general system of internal taxation applying systematically to domestic and imported products according to the same criteria is subject to the rule of non-discrimination in matters of internal taxation laid down by article 95; it may nevertheless constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports when such duty is intended exclusively to support activities which specifically benefit the taxed domestic product.
As from 1 january 1970, the date of expiration of the transitional period, article 13(2) has, by its very nature, produced direct effects in the legal relations between the member states and those subject to their jurisdiction.
A due imposed by a member state has not the character of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty by reason solely of the fact that it is utilized for the purpose of financing a system of aid which is recognized as incompatible with the treaty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Conceria Daniele Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana Delle Finanze R-87/75; [1976] EUECJ R-87/75
5 Feb 1976
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ 1. Whatever its designation and mode of application, a pecuniary charge which is imposed unilaterally on goods imported from another member state when they cross a frontier constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty.
Nor, in determining the effects of the duty on the free movement of goods, is it of any importance that a duty is proportionate to the costs of a compulsory public health inspection carried out on entry of the goods, since the activity of the administration of the state intended to maintain a public health inspection system imposed in the general interest cannot be regarded as a service rendered to the importer such as to justify the imposition of a pecuniary charge.
2. The direct effect of article 13(2) of the Treaty can only be invoked with effect from 1 January 1970.
3. Article 2(1) of the convention signed at Yaounde on 20 July 1963 confers, with effect from 1 January 1970, on those subject to community law the right, which the national courts of the community must protect, not to pay to a member state a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties.
4. The obligations imposed upon the member states by the Yaounde Convention of 1963 continued to exist without interruption until the entry into force of the Convention signed at Yaounde on 29 July 1969.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gesellschaft Fuer Ueberseehandel Mbh v Handelskammer Hamburg R-49/76; [1977] EUECJ R-49/76
26 Jan 1977
ECJ

Customs and Excise
Certificates of origin.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rolf H Dittmeyer v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof C-69/76; R-70/76; [1977] EUECJ R-70/76
15 Feb 1977
ECJ

Customs and Excise, European
ECJ 1. The opinions of the committee on common customs tariff nomen- clature constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the common customs tariff by the customs authorities of the member states and as such they may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff. Nevertheless such opinions do not have legally binding force so that, where appropriate, it is necessary to consider whether their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions.
2. Heading 23.06 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted to mean that it may include products consisting of parts of fruit, which however are almost entirely lacking in any of those features which determine the nature of fruit, in particular products consisting of oranges which initially entered the juice in the course of pressing the oranges and which have subsequently been strained off even if they contain scarcely any constituent parts of the flesh of the fruit or fruit juice and instead constitute principally cell membrane and albedo.
[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Ludwig Poppe v Oberfinanzdirektion De Cologne. R-63/77; [1977] EUECJ R-63/77
15 Dec 1977
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Tariff heading 48.15 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include goods consisting of two sheets of din a 4 format stuck together, one of which is carbon paper and the other flimsy paper, as such goods must be classified under tariff heading 48.18 as 'other stationery of paper'.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fratelli Zerbone Snc v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-94/77; R-94/77; [1978] EUECJ R-94/77; [1978] ECR 99
31 Jan 1978
ECJ

Customs and Excise
ECJ The direct application of a community regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure adopting it into national law. By reason of the obligations imposed on them by the treaty member states must not impede the direct effect of regulations or other rules of community law. The scrupulous observation of this duty is an indispensable requisite for the simultaneous and uniform application of community regulations throughout the whole of the community. Accordingly member states must not adopt or allow national institutions with a legislative power to adopt a measure by which the community nature of a legal rule and the consequences which arise from it are concealed from the persons concerned. Although it is true that in the event of difficulty of interpretation the national administration may be led to adopt detailed rules for the application of a community regulation and at the same time to clarify any doubts raised, it can do so only in so far as it complies with the provisions of community law and the national authorities cannot issue binding rules of interpretation. Regulations nos 974/71 and 1013/71, as amended by regulation no 2887/71, do not permit member states to adopt provisions laying down specific criteria concerning the applicability or otherwise of compensatory amounts to contracts concluded before 19 December 1971 in order to 'allow the contract to be executed under the conditions which would have existed had the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation (EEC) no 974/71 not been taken', as provided for under article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71. The provisions of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 are fully effective in themselves and must therefore be interpreted as leaving it to the courts of the member state concerned to decide whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation no 974/71. As regards the application of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 the question is whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures which led to the introduction of the monetary compensatory amounts. Where the contract provides for payment by the opening of an irrevocable documentary credit the answer must depend on the nature of the arrangements agreed between the importer and the issuing bank and these may in turn depend on the provisions of the local law applicable to them. Where the credit is to be opened for a sum in foreign currency (as, in this case, dollars), the crucial date will be that upon which the rate of exchange determining the amount of the importer ' s liability to the issuing bank was applicable. For the purpose of determining whether the conditions for applying and determining monetary compensatory amounts are fulfilled reference must be made in respect of each commercial transaction ( importation or exportation ) to the day of the importation or exportation. The regime of trade with non-member countries in the common organization of the market in bananas established by regulation no 404/93, in particular the tariff quota for imports and the way it is subdivided, does not constitute a breach of fundamental rights and general principles of law.
Europa With respect to the prohibition of discrimination, it is true that two different categories of traders, those who previously operated on open national markets and were able freely to obtain supplies of third-country bananas, and those who operated on protected national markets and were ensured the possibility of disposing of community and traditional ACP bananas despite their higher price are not affected in the same way by those measures, since the former now find their import possibilities restricted, whereas the latter may now import specified quantities of third-country bananas. However, that difference in treatment appears to be inherent in the objective of integrating previously compartmentalized markets, bearing in mind the different situations of the various categories of traders before the establishment of the common organization of the market, and permits the striking of a balance between the two categories of traders, necessary for ensuring the disposal of community production and traditional acp production, which the common organization must ensure. The same considerations justify the restriction on the freedom of traders who previously operated on open markets to pursue their trade or business, the substance of that right not being impaired. With respect to those traders' right to property, the loss of market shares does not impact that right, since the market share held before the establishment of a common organization of a market constitutes only a momentary economic position exposed to the risks of changing circumstances and is not covered by the right to property. Similarly, a position on the market resulting from an existing situation cannot, especially if that situation is contrary to the rules of the common market, benefit from protection on the basis of acquired rights or legitimate expectation. Finally, with respect to the principle of proportionality, it cannot be considered that there was a breach in that the objectives of supporting acp producers and guaranteeing the income of community producers could have been achieved by measures having less effect on competition and on the interests of certain categories of traders, since there is nothing to show that the council, which in establishing a common organization of the markets had to reconcile divergent interests and thus select options within the context of the policy choices which are its own responsibility, adopted measures which were manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective pursued. With respect to the establishment of a tariff quota, the import of bananas from acp states into the community falls under article 168(2)(a)(ii) of the fourth acp-eec lomé convention, protocol 5 on bananas annexed to that convention, and annexes lxxiv and lxxv relating to that protocol. Under those provisions, the community' s only obligation is to maintain the advantages, with respect to access of acp bananas to the community market, which the acp states had before that convention, so that regulation no 404/93 was able, without being in breach of article 168(1) of the convention, to impose a levy on imports of non-traditional acp bananas exceeding a specified tonnage. The special features of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is characterized by the great flexibility of its provisions, in particular those conferring the possibility of derogation, the measures to be taken when confronted with exceptional difficulties and the settlement of conflicts between the contracting parties, precludes the court from taking provisions of gatt into consideration to assess the lawfulness of a regulation in an action brought by a member state under the first paragraph of article 173 of the treaty. Those features show that the gatt rules are not unconditional and that an obligation to recognize them as rules of international law which are directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the contracting parties cannot be based on the spirit, general scheme or terms of gatt. In the absence of such an obligation following from gatt itself, it is only if the community intended to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of gatt, or if the community act expressly refers to specific provisions of gatt, that the court can review the lawfulness of the community act in question from the point of view of the gatt rules. Although the protocol on the tariff quota for imports of bananas is indeed an integral part of the treaty since it is annexed to the implementing convention on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the community, provided for in article 136 of the treaty, it was nevertheless adopted as a transitional measure pending standardization of the conditions for importing bananas into the common market. As part of that system, the third subparagraph of paragraph 4 of the protocol provides that, on a proposal from the commission, the council acting by a qualified majority may abolish or amend that quota, with no reservations as to the temporal extent of a decision to abolish it. That means that the protocol, which moreover cannot have the effect of derogating from a basic provision of the treaty such as article 43(2), and the quota which it provides for can be abolished without having to comply with the rules for amending the treaty laid down in article 236 of the treaty.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
SA Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche and SARL Francois Delquignies v Administration Francaise des Douanes C-96/77
15 Feb 1978
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Agriculture - common organization of the markets - sugar - export to non- member countries - assignment of licences - substitution of product - deflection of trade - application of monetary compensatory amounts - commission regulation no 101/77 - validity - Measure adopted by an institution - amendment of an earlier provision - situations arising under the latter - future effects - application of the amending rule.

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.