C-290/84

Mainfrucht Obstverwertung GmbH

on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 15 of Council Regulation N o 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (Official Journal, L 134, p. 1),

T H E C O U R T (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: K. Bahlmann (President of Chamber), G. Bosco, T. Koopmans, T. F. O'Higgins and F. Schockweiler, Judges,

Advocate General: C. O. Lenz Registrar: P. Heim

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

JUDGMENT

(The account of the facts and issues which is contained in the complete text of the judgment is not reproduced)

Decision

1 By an order of 30 October 1984, which was received at the Court on 3 December 1984, the Bundesfinanzhof submitted to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 15 of Council Regulation N o 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes.

2 T h e questions were raised in proceedings between Mainfrucht Obstverwertung G m b H and the Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt (hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Office'), supported by the Federal Minister for Finance.

3 Between July and September 1980, Mainfrucht imported from Bulgaria into the Federal Republic of Germany some consignments of precooled morello cherries and frozen raspberries. For each consignment, the suppliers issued two invoices to Mainfrucht, one covering the price of the goods supplied and the transport costs as far as the German frontier and the other covering only the transport costs from the German frontier to Mainfruchťs headquarters at Gochsheim (Bavaria).

7 Article 8 (1) provides:

'In determining the customs value under Article 3, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods :

(e) (i) the cost of transport and insurance of the imported goods, and

(ii) loading and handling charges associated with the transport of the imported goods

to the place of introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the Community.'

8 Article 15 is also relevant. It provides as follows :

n T h e Customs Office appealed against the Finanzgerichťs judgment to the Bun­ desfinanzhof which, by an order of 30 October 1984, stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

' 1 . (a) Where a local purchaser has paid a foreign supplier, in addition to the price of the goods, an amount in respect of 'intra-Community transport costs' on the basis of a separate invoice, does the transaction value within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1224/80 include both amounts?

(b) If so, must that amount be adjusted pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation No 1224/80 in order to be taken as the customs value of the goods?

2. If those questions are answered in the affirmative:

(a) Is Article 15 (2) (a) of Regulation N o 1224/80 applicable where the person concerned declares transport costs covering transport within the Community alone?

(b) If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative:

M As regards Question 1 (a), the Bundesfinanzhof expresses the view in its order for reference that it must be deduced from Article 3 (3) (a) of Regulation N o 1224/80, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation N o 3193/80, that the cost of transport within the Community must be included in the transaction value referred to in Article 3 (1).

is In Mainfruchťs view, the question calls for a negative reply, for reasons connected with the wording of Article 3 (1) of Regulation N o 1224/80, the origin and back­ ground to that provision and the overall scheme of the regulation.

i6 As regards the wording of the provision, Mainfrucht states that intra-Community transpon costs are paid not for the imported goods but for their transport, even where they are paid to the supplier of the goods. Moreover, those costs are paid for carriage within the Community and not for exportation to the customs

JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1985 — CASE 290/84

territory of the Community. It is also apparent from the wording of Article 3 that only the cost of transport to the place of introduction into the customs territory of the Community is to be added, under Article 8 (1) (e) (i), to the value for customs purposes. A contrario, the intra-Community transport costs must not be included in that valuation.

i7 As regards the origin of and background to Regulation N o 1224/80, and in particular. Article 3 thereof, Mainfrucht states that, as is apparent from the recitals to the said regulation, the regulation was adopted for the purpose of incorporating into Community law the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (see Council Decision 8/271/EEC of 10 December 1979, Official Journal 1980, L 71, p. 1, and in particular the text of the above agreement, at p. 107), Article 8 (2) of which provides:

20 In Mainfruchťs view, the opposite conclusion cannot be drawn from Article 15; on the contrary, it must be inferred from that provision that the cost of transport within the Community is not included in the customs value, either where it is shown separately (paragraph 1) or where the overall transport costs have to be apportioned (paragraph 2).

2i The Commission agrees in essence with the opinions expressed by Mainfrucht.

22 It should be noted that, as Mainfrucht and the Commission have rightly pointed out, it is clear from the very terms of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1224/80 as well as from their context that intra-Community transport costs are in principle not included in the transaction value referred to in Article 3, and therefore are also not included in the customs value.

23 By laying down the principle that the transaction value is 'the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community', Article 3 (1) indicates that that price may be adjusted only in accordance with Article 8.

24 Since, as far as transport costs are concerned, Article 8 merely provides that only the cost of transport 'to the place of introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the Community' is to be added to the price actually paid or payable, it follows that the cost of transport from the place of introduction into the customs territory of the Community to the place of destination within that territory is not to be added to the price in question and therefore is not part of the customs value.

so The purpose of Regulation No 1224/80, like that of Regulation No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 170) which preceded it, is, according to the sixth recital in the preamble, 'to ensure uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff and equal treatment of Community importers'.

3i It would not be consistent with that objective to interpret Regulation No 1224/80 as meaning that intra-Community transport costs were to be included in the customs value.

32 If they were to be included, the customs value would depend on the distance between the place of introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the Community and the place of destination within that territory, with the consequence that the customs duties levied in respect of the same goods imported into the Community through the same customs office would be of a different amount according to how far the place of destination of the goods was from that customs office. Because such a result entails unequal treatment of imports notwithstanding the fact that the import transactions carried out were identical, it cannot be accepted.

33 The reply to the first question raised by the national court must therefore be that intra-Community transport costs paid by the importer on the basis of a separate invoice are not part of the transaction value referred to in Article 3 (1) of Regu- lation No 1224/80.

HAUPTZOLLAMT SCHWEINFURT v MAINFRUCHT OBSTVERWERTUNG

34 However, that reply does not mean that the competent customs authorities may not, if the circumstances warrant it, check the invoice relating to the costs in question in order to verify that the costs which have been invoiced are not fictitious.

39 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.

JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1985 — CASE 290/84

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Bundesfinanzhof by an order of 30 October 1984, hereby rules:

Where a local buyer has paid a foreign seller, in addition to the price of the goods, an amount in respect of 'intra-Community transport costs' on the basis of a separate invoice, the transaction value within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Regu- lation No 1224/80 includes only the first of those amounts; however the competent customs authorities may, if the circumstances warrant it, check the invoice relating to the costs in question in order to verify that they are not fictitious.