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: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Sektkellerei CA Kupferberg and Cie Kg AA v Hauptzollamt Mainz R-253/83; [1985] EUECJ R-253/83
15 Jan 1985
ECJ

Customs and Excise
Tax system with regard to spirits.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Van Gend and Loos Nv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, A Enschede; ECJ 7-Mar-1985 - R-32/84; [1985] EUECJ R-32/84
 
Telefunken Fernseh Und Rundfunk Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Muenchen R-223/84; [1985] EUECJ R-223/84
7 Oct 1985
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ 1. The functional unit principle referred to in the customs cooperation council's explanatory notes is intended to allow classification under a given heading of machines or appliances made up of components falling under several tariff headings, in cases where those components as a whole are designed to perform the single clearly-defined function referred to in the tariff heading in question. The principle does not apply where some of the components making up a product may be used independently of the other components and for functions other than those which may be performed by all the components together.
2. An apparatus described as a timer/tuner which consists of a colour-television reception component with a 12-programme memory and of a timer that can be pre-set to switch the apparatus on and off up to 10 days in advance and which must be combined with a video recorder of a specific design in order to convert into visible form transmissions received must be regarded as a part or accessory within the meaning of subheading 92.13 d of the common customs tariff.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hauptzollamt Hannover v Telefunken Fernseh Und Rundfunk Gmbh R-163/84; [1985] EUECJ R-163/84
7 Oct 1985
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ 1. The fact that goods are intended, or are even specifically designed, to be used together and that they are presented for customs clearance together in the same package is not a sufficient reason for classifying them as a functional unit within the meaning of the customs cooperation council's explanatory notes, if they can be used separately.
The functional unit principle is intended to allow classification under a given heading of machines and appliances made up of components falling under several tariff headings, in cases where those components as a whole are intended to perform the single clearly-defined function referred to in the tariff heading in question. The principle does not apply where some of the components making up a product may be used independently of the other components and for functions other than those which may be performed by all the components together.
2. The expression 'goods put up in sets' in general rule A3(b) implies that the goods are closely linked from the marketing point of view, with the result that they are not only presented together for customs clearance but are also normally supplied together, at the various marketing stages and in particular the retail stage, in a single package in order to satisfy a demand or to perform a specific function. General rule A3(b) applies only where goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings and classification is not possible under general rule A3(a), that is to say where there is no specific heading taking precedence over more general headings.
3. A combined tuner, record-player and cassette recorder imported together with two loudspeakers intended for use with it constitutes a set of goods falling under heading no 85.15 of the common customs tariff, where the goods concerned are put up in a single package and are intended to be marketed together in order to satisfy a specific demand.
[ Bailii ]
 
Texas Instruments v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Mitte (Judgment) C-227/84
14 Nov 1985
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Common customs tariff - alteration or suspension of import duties - powers of the council - limits (eec treaty, art. 28; council regulation no 2841/79) although article 28 of the EEC treaty, which concerns autonomous alterations or suspensions of common customs tariff duties, leaves the council considerable discretion, it is for the court to ascertain whether or not the manner in which the council has carried out the duties thereby entrusted to it constitutes a misuse of power or gives rise to discrimination.

 
John Friedrich Krohn (gmbh and co Kg) v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung C-165/84
12 Dec 1985
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa 1. Measures adopted by the institutions - regulations - application by analogy - conditions (commission regulations Nos 2029/82 and 2655/82) 2. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - cereals - import certificates - opportunity offered by regulation no 2655/82 to importers of products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff originating in non-member countries other than Thailand to have licences cancelled - extension to importation of the same products originating in Thailand covered by regulation no 2029/82 - identical conditions concerning time-limits and other procedural requirements (commission regulations Nos 2029/82 and 2655/82, art. 3 (6))
  1. The scope of a regulation is normally defined by its own terms and it may not in principle be extended to situations other than those which it envisaged. The position may be different in certain exceptional cases. Thus, traders are entitled to rely on an application by analogy of a regulation which would not normally be applicable to them if they can show that the rules applicable to their case, on the one hand, are very similar to those which it is sought to have applied by analogy and, on the other hand, contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of community law and which can be remedied by application by analogy of those other rules.
  2. Article 3 (6) of commission regulation no 2655/82, laying down rules for implementing the import arrangements for 1982 for products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff originating in third countries other than Thailand must be interpreted as applying to the case of importers of products falling within the said tariff subheading and originating in Thailand as provided for by commission regulation no 2029/82. If that were not so, importers of the said products originating in Thailand, who, until the adoption of regulation no 2029/82, were subject to legal rules corresponding very closely to those governing importers of the same products originating in other non-member countries and who were therefore likely to benefit, on the same basis as the latter, from measures intended to protect legitimate expectation, would be placed in a situation which was contrary to the principle in community law of equal treatment of traders in comparable situations. Article 3 (6) of regulation no 2655/82 is to be applied to the importation of products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff and originating in Thailand subject to the time-limits and other procedural requirements therein laid down.


 
Stinnes AG v Hauptzollamt Kassel C-214/84
12 Dec 1985
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa European Communities ' own resources - post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - article 8 of regulation no 1697/79 - a given action for recovery - meaning - combining of several separate actions for recovery -permissibility - conditions (Council Regulation no 1697/79, art. 8). The term 'a given action for recovery' in article 8 of council regulation no 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import or export duties must be interpreted as referring to each individual import or export transaction. That interpretation does not preclude the practice of combining several separate actions for recovery in a single recovery order provided that the amount concerned in each action exceeds the amount specified in the first paragraph of the aforesaid article 8.

 
Ethicon Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe R-58/85; [1986] EUECJ R-58/85
18 Mar 1986
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Suspension of customs duties - Yarn of polyglycollic acid.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Shivpuri; HL 15-May-1986 - [1986] 2 WLR 988; [1986] 1 All ER 334; [1986] UKHL 2; [1987] AC 1
 
Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities [1986] EUECJ C-160/84
15 May 1986
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Remission of import duties - General equitable provision in Article 13 of Council Regulation No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Hauptzollamt Itzehoe v HJ Repenning Gmbh R-183/85; [1986] EUECJ R-183/85
12 Jun 1986
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes must be interpreted as meaning that where goods bought free of defects are damaged before being released for free circulation the price actually paid or payable, on which the transaction value is based, must be reduced in proportion to the damage suffered.
Council Regulation No 1224/80 3(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 AGOSI v The United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Oct-1986 - 9118/80; (1986) 9 EHRR 1; Series A no. 108
 
Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise [1987] QB 254
1987


Customs and Excise, European
Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are 'liable to forfeiture' under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be in breach of the applicant's rights under Community law.
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch3 Para 6
1 Citers


 
Regina v Simmons [1988] 2 RCS 495
1988

Dickson CJ
Customs and Excise, Police, Human Rights
(Supreme Court of Canada) A contraband search based on reasonable suspicion of the presence of smuggled material is an exception to the usual requirements for searches imposed by section 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Dickson CJ said: "People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny . . Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. This process will typically require the production of proper identification and travel documentation and involve a search process . . "
1 Citers



 
 Regina v HM Customs and Excise Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd; ECJ 19-Jan-1988 - R-141/86; [1988] EUECJ R-141/86
 
Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379; 10519/83; [1988] ECHR 19
7 Oct 1988
ECHR
R Ryssdal P
Human Rights, Customs and Excise, Crime
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, went through the green customs channel and was detained. The trunk contained cannabis. He was charged with two offences, a criminal offence of illegally importing narcotics and a "customs offence" of smuggling prohibited goods. At trial and on appeal he was acquitted of the former but convicted of smuggling, an offence relating to any act of smuggling or undeclared import: a person in possession of contraband goods "shall be deemed liable for the offence". The accused may exculpate himself by establishing force majeure resulting "from an event responsibility for which is not attributable to him and which it was absolutely impossible for him to avoid". The ‘almost irrebutable presumption’ . . was said to be incompatible with article 6. Held: Contracting States may apply the criminal law to an act where it is not carried out in the normal exercise of one of the rights protected under the Convention, and accordingly, to define the constituent elements in the resulting offence. Contracting States may penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence. Examples of such offences may be found in the laws of the Contracting States. However, the Applicant was not convicted for mere possession of unlawfully imported prohibited goods. Article 392(1) of the Customs Code does not appear under the heading ‘classification of customs offences’ but under that of ‘criminal liability’. Under this provision a conclusion is drawn from a simple fact, which in itself does not necessarily constitute a petty or a more serious offence, that the ‘criminal liability’ for the unlawful importation of the goods, whether they are prohibited or not, or the failure to declare them, lies with the person in whose possession they are found. It infers therefrom a legal presumption on the basis of which (the French Courts) found the Applicant guilty of smuggling prohibited goods . . This shift from the idea of accountability in criminal law to the notion of guilt shows the very relative nature of such a distinction. It raises a question with regard to Article 6.2 of the Convention. The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact in principle, but does require certain limits as regards criminal law. If 6.2 merely laid down a guarantee to be respected by the courts in the conduct of legal proceedings, its requirements would in practice overlap with the duty of impartiality imposed in paragraph 1. Above all, the national legislature would be free to strip the trial court of any genuine power of assessment and deprive the presumption of innocence of its substance, if the words ‘according to law’ were construed exclusively with reference of domestic law. Such a situation could not be reconciled with the object and purpose of Article 6, which, by protecting the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to be presumed innocent, is intended to enshrine the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Article 6.2 does not therefore regard presumptions of fact or of law provided for in the criminal law with indifference. It requires States to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence
European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Volker Huber v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Flughafen R-291/87; [1988] EUECJ R-291/87
14 Dec 1988
ECJ
TF O' Higgins P
Customs and Excise
ECJ Common Customs Tariff - Heading 99.02 - Original lithographs. Proofs printed from a plate wholly executed by hand by the artist are to be regarded as original lithographs for the purposes of Heading 99.02 of the Common Customs Tariff even if the printing has been made by means of a mechanical printing process . Proofs printed as a result of a reprinting process in which the original design made on special paper called transfer or Berlin paper is transferred several times, first from the transfer paper to the stone, then from the stone to fresh transfer paper which in turn is transferred to a new stone to enable the print of a second series and so on until the desired number of multiple impressions is achieved are also to be regarded as original lithographs.
Although the number of proofs printed from a single original design may be evidence of the non-original nature of the work, it cannot in itself constitute a decisive criterion for the definition of an original lithograph.
[ Bailii ]
 
Paul F. Weber (In Liquidation) v Milchwerke Paderborn-Rimbeck Eg. R-40/88; [1989] EUECJ R-40/88
25 May 1989
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Common Customs Tariff.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.