C-117/88

TREND-MODEN TEXTILHANDEL

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on 9 November 1989 *

Mr President, documents T2 or T2L could be accepted for Members of the Court, that purpose.

1. The Finanzgericht (Finance Court) 3. The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, before Düsseldorf has referred to the Court of whom the dispute was brought, referred to Justice for a preliminary ruling a question the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the means used to prove the a question which asks in substance whether Community origin of goods in customs Article 9(2) of the EEC Treaty provides that matters. the production of a transit document pursuant to Articles 1(4) and 9 of Regu­ lation (EEC) No 222/77 ' is the only means of proving the Community origin of goods.

I-637

OPINION OF MR DARMON — CASE C-l 17/88

Community transit document is produced in Community measure as to the use and / or respect thereof'. Article 39 provides that destination of goods imported into, 'any goods that are to be carried under the exported from, or moving within the procedure for internal Community transit 8 Community have been complied with'. shall be covered by a T2 declaration'. Finally, Article 9 provides that where, in the cases provided for in that regulation, the free movement of goods depends on the presentation of an internal Community 7. The Court of Justice has already given its transit document, 'the party concerned may, view on the philosophy behind a system of for any valid reason, obtain that document proof of that kind. In its judgment in Case 9 subsequently from the competent authorities 12/70, the Court stated, with regard to of the Member State of departure'. certificate DD4 for goods subject to agri­ cultural levies, that

'it is ... necessary for the use of certificate 5. Under Article 69 et seq. of Regulation DD4 as a standard means of proof to be (EEC) No 223/77, * which was applicable at absolutely identical in all the Member the time of the facts of the main dispute, the States', '° Community origin of goods may also be proved by the production of a T2L document when the goods are transported directly from one Member State to 6 and the Court added that another. Document T2L may also be issued retroactively without it being necessary, as it is under Article 9 of Regu­ 7 lation No 222/77, to state a valid reason. 'this requirement would be invalidated if national administrations were able to employ other means of proof', "

'the Community rules in this field are drawn up in terms which do not give the national authorities the option of accepting any other proof that the goods have been placed under control in the importing country than 11. In my view that argument is not the formal proof provided by the control relevant; such requirements seek to 14 copy of the transit document ... '. safeguard objectives the importance of which has already been emphasized by the Court, namely the elimination of barriers to trade between Member States by 16 harmonizing formalities, the need for all 9. With regard to the T5 document itself, in economic operators in the Community to be the judgment in Case 15/83 the Court subject to the same rules of proof and the emphasized that prevention of fraud. The provisions of Regulations Nos 222/77 and 223/77 do not in my opinion impose obligations which are disproportionate to what is strictly necessary to achieve those objectives. Moreover, 'since the purpose of those rules is to Article 9 of Regulation No 222/77 permits exclude the possibility of aid being paid those concerned, and in my view this is twice, as well as that of the goods fundamentally important, to obtain internal re-entering normal market channels, and Community transit documents retroactively thereby to prevent fraudulent practices, the from the competent authorities of the formalities regarding proof must continue to Member State of departure. Article 71(3) of be rigorously applied both to exports and to Regulation No 223/77 contains a similar 5 inland deliveries'. ' provision with regard to the T2L document. Consequently, the fact that internal Community transit documents are not presented when the goods are transported does not automatically lead to the levying of 10. When compared with the grounds of customs duties since their Community status the order making the reference, the question can easily be proved subsequently. The levying of customs duties in respect of 13 — Judgment of 7 February 1979 in Joined Cases 15/76 and goods originating in the Community can 16/76 Framti Commmion (1979) ECR 32 1 thus be easily avoided. 14 — Paragraph 14. 15 — Judgment of 17 May 1984 in Case 15/83 Denkavil Nederland v Hoofdproduktichap voor Akkerboiiwproditklen [19841 ECR 2171, paragraph 29 16 — Judgment in Case 12/70, cued above, paragraph 5.