C-292/96

* Original language: Danish. 1 — OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1. 2 — OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

I-167

OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-292/96

4. Special simplified procedures for the who intends to carry out Community transit Community transit procedure shall be laid operations (hereinafter referred to as "the down in accordance with the committee pro­ authorised consignor") not to present at the cedure. office of departure either the goods con­ cerned or the Community transit declaration in respect of those goods.' 3

Article 249 Proceedings before the national court and questions referred for a preliminary ruling

The provisions required for the implementa­ tion of this Code ... shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 ...

I-168

GÖRITZ INTRANSCO INTERNATIONAL v HZA DÜSSELDORF

jurisdiction of the Hauptzollamt (Principal order of 14 August 1996 stayed the proceed­ Customs Office) Düsseldorf, Zollamt ings and referred the following questions to Flughafen (Airport Customs Office) (the the Court: 4 office of departure ).

5. On 4 April 1995 Göritz applied to the '1 . Is Article 76(1) of [the customs regu­ Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf for the status of lation], in conjunction with Article 398 et authorised consignor for dispatch of incom­ seq. of [the implementing regulation], the ing air freight consignments under the Com­ legal basis for granting the status of "autho­ munity transit procedure. Such authorisation rised consignor", or is such authorisation, would have allowed Göritz to use transit pursuant to Article 76(4) of [the customs declaration forms pre-stamped by the office regulation], to be based only on the said of departure; Göritz would not then have Article 398 et seq.? been required to await processing of transit declarations during the opening hours of the office of departure.

2. Does Article 398 of [the implementing 6. The Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf refused the regulation] preclude authorisation as an application by decision of 23 June 1995. "authorised consignor" where, as a result of Göritz lodged an objection with the Oberfi­ goods having already been presented to cus­ nanzdirektion (Principal Revenue Office) toms, exemption from the obligation to Düsseldorf, which by decision of 12 Decem­ present them provided for in that provision ber 1995 dismissed the objection on the is no longer possible?' ground that there was no legal basis for the authorisation which Göritz sought, since it was impossible to transfer the place of decla­ ration as provided for in Article 398 of the implementing regulation where the goods were already at the office of departure. Analysis

12. The Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf maintains that Article 398 of the implementing regu­ lation does not provide a legal basis for 10. I should point out that, as the Commis­ exemption from the obligation to present the sion and the Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf have goods, although it does allow the presenta­ argued, under Article 76(4) of the customs tion of the goods to be transferred from the regulation, special simplified procedures for office of departure to a different place. In the Community transit procedure are to be reality the second question is asking whether laid down in accordance with the committee authorisation as an authorised consignor can procedure, that is, laid down according to be granted where the place of presentation the procedure governed by Article 249 of the can no longer be transferred. It follows from customs regulation. Article 398 of the imple­ the wording of Article 398 and the balancing menting regulation concerns special simpli­ of the interest of effective control and the fied procedures for the Community transit undertaking's interest in a simplified pro­ procedure and was thus adopted on the basis cedure that in that case authorisation as of Article 249 in conjunction with Article authorised consignor cannot be granted. 76(4) of the customs regulation. Where the undertaking is based at the office of departure no transport costs can be saved by transferring the place of declaration and the interest of the undertaking therefore con­ sists solely in being exempted from present­ ing the Community transit declarations at 11. I shall therefore turn immediately to the the office of departure. Such declarations second question referred by the national must be filled out both in ordinary proce­ court, as to whether under Article 398 of the dures and in simplified procedures. Where implementing regulation exemption can be the undertaking is based at the office of granted from the obligation to present a departure, presentation involves no costs and Community transit procedure declaration at only a limited amount of time, and even as

an authorised consignor the undertaking Dutch, French, Spanish, Greek and Swedish must visit the office of departure to obtain versions use the words 'neither ... nor'. The pre-stamped declaration forms. English version has 'either ... or'; however, those words follow a negative and therefore in reality also amount to 'neither ... nor'. On a strict interpretation of the wording, those versions may perhaps, because that expres­ sion is used, be taken to mean that exemp­ tion cannot be granted in respect of only 13. The Commission considers that the one of the authorisations referred to in wording of Article 398 in the various lan­ Article 398. guage versions indicates that exemption from the obligation to present a Community tran­ sit declaration at the office of departure can be granted even though exemption from the obligation to present the goods at the office of departure cannot be granted because the authorised consignor is based at the office of departure. This construction is confirmed by 15. The Danish, Italian and Portuguese ver­ a comparison with Article 406 of the imple­ sions use the word 'and'. The Finnish ver­ menting regulation, which concerns the sion uses the word 'or'. It does not follow authorised consignee, and also by the pur­ from those versions, therefore, that exemp­ pose of Article 398 et seq., which is to sim­ tion cannot be granted in respect of only one plify as much as possible the formal require­ of those two authorisations. ments imposed on undertakings and the customs authorities in regard to the Com­ munity transit procedure. Exemption from the obligation to present a Community tran­ sit declaration at the office of departure is advantageous to the undertaking concerned and also to the customs authorities, even 16. In my opinion the different language where the undertaking is based at the office versions make no definite contribution to the of departure. Exemption in those circum­ interpretation of Article 398 and decisive stances is not prejudicial to customs inter­ weight must therefore be placed on the sub­ ests. If the status of authorised consignor can stantive considerations underlying the rule. be granted in cases where the goods are in a place other than the office of departure, there is all the more reason why such authorisa­ tion should be available where the goods are at the office of departure.

provides that the authorised consignee must, 19. On the contrary, it seems logical to inter alia, send the office of destination with­ assume that it must also be possible, a for- out delay the copies of the Community tran­ tiori, to grant exemption from the obligation sit document which accompanied the con­ to present Community transit declarations at signment. Exemption cannot therefore be the office of departure when it is possible to granted from the obligation to present the grant exemption from the obligation to Community transit document at the office of present both Community transit declarations destination, whereas under Article 398 and goods at the office of departure. exemption may be granted from the obliga­ tion to present the Community transit decla­ ration at the office of departure. That does not, however, prevent exemption being granted from the obligation to present the goods at the office of destination.

20. It is that interpretation which is most consistent with the aim of the rules in ques­ 18. I fail to see why, where the position is tion, namely to simplify formalities and pro­ reversed, that is to say where it is impossible cedures as much as possible. Nor, according in practice to grant exemption from the obli­ to what the Commission has said, can there gation to present the goods at the office of be any danger to customs interests if, where departure, there should be anything to pre­ the goods are at the office of departure, vent exemption being granted from the obli­ exemption is granted from the obligation to gation to present the Community transit present the Community transit declaration at declaration at the office of departure. that place.