C-78/01

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 14 January 2003 1

I — Introduction national transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (hereinafter the 'TIR Conven- tion'), the substance of which is incor- porated in Regulation No 2454/93.

1. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling several questions on the interpretation of Articles 454 and 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC) I I — Legal background No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Coun- cil Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 estab- lishing the Community Customs Code. 2

A — The TIR Convention

vehicle by simplifying and harmonising the purpose by the authorities of the contract- administrative customs formalities to be ing parties (Article 3). This guarantee is fulfilled at frontiers. Accordingly, it pro- itself covered by the International Road vides that consignments of goods being Transport Union (IRU) and by a group of transported are subject to a single inspec- insurance companies established in Switzer- tion by the customs office of departure, to land. the exclusion of any other examination by the customs offices en route or of desti- nation, unless the latter suspect an irregu- larity (Article 5). Furthermore, it provides that such goods are not subject to the payment or deposit of import or export duties and taxes 5 (Article 4). 6. Having thus sketched the broad outlines of the TIR system, I shall now describe how it is applied in practice.

I - 9547

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

bears reservations or is not received by the customs authorities must so far as possible customs office of departure, the TIR oper- require payment from the person or per- ation is considered to be irregular on the sons directly liable before making a claim territory in question. As a consequence, the a g a i n s t the g u a r a n t e e i n g a s s o c i a t i o n customs authorities of that territory are (Article 8(1), (3) and (7) of the TIR entitled to demand payment of the duties Convention). and taxes which thus become payable.

11. The procedural framework for invok- 9. The guaranteeing associations may be ing the liability of a guaranteeing associ- called upon to guarantee payment of part ation is defined in Articles 10(2) and 11 of of the import or export duties and taxies the TIR Convention. It consists of the falling due as a consequence of the irregu- following three elements. larity of the TIR operation. 7 This amount may be increased to include default inter- est. The guaranteeing association is liable, jointly and severally with the persons directly chargeable, for payment of the sums in question. However, the competent 12. First, the customs authorities may not 7 — Guarantee limits are set by the contracting parties to the claim against a guaranteeing association if TIR Convention. The explanatory notes to the Convention, they have unconditionally discharged a TIR which were adopted on the basis of Article 43, contain recommendations in this regard. The limits proposed vary according to the type and quantity of goods covered. The highest relate to alcohol and tobacco, primarily because of the high duties and taxies on such products. 8 — See Article 457(2) of Regulation No 2454/93.

I - 9548

BGL

B — Regulation No 2454/93

15. In accordance with Article 48 of the 2. The claim for payment of the sums TIR Convention, special provisions have referred to... shall be made to the guaran- been adopted within the Community fol- teeing association at the earliest three transport operations on the Community's months after the date on which the associ- customs territory. These provisions are ation was informed that the Carnet had not contained in Regulation No 2454/93.

I - 9549

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

2. Where it is found that, in the course of or in connection with a transport operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet..., an offence or irregularity has been com- mitted in a particular Member State, the If the Member State where the said offence recovery of duties and other charges which or irregularity was actually committed is may be payable shall be effected by that subsequently determined, the duties and Member State in accordance with Commu- other charges (apart from those levied, pursuant to the second subparagraph, as own resources of the Community) to which 9 — The sum recovered corresponds to the amount of customs the goods are liable in that Member State duties, excise duties and value added tax. Of the customs shall be returned to it by the Member State duties, 90% accrues to the Community budget and the remaining 10% covers the recovery expenses incurred by which had originally recovered them. In the customs authorities of the Member States. The entire amount of the excise duties accrues to the Member State that case, any overpayment shall be repaid that undertook recovery. The value added tax accrues to the person who had originally paid the mainly to that Member State, with a small portion going to the Community. charges.

I - 9550

BGL

2 1 . The last date laid down for presenting the goods at the Spanish customs office was

2. Proof of the regularity of the operation 10 — Commission Regulation of 15 December 2001) (OJ 2000 carried out under cover of a TIR carnet... L 330, p. 1). within the meaning of the first subpara- 11 — See the 12th recital of Regulation No 2787/2000.

I-9551

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

28 March 1994, five days after the starting contract with a group of insurance com- date of the transport operation. As the panies including Préservatrice Foncière H Z A received no confirmation of discharge Tiard SA (hereinafter 'PFA'), intervener in of the TIR operation from the Spanish the main proceedings. customs office, it asked the latter for information in this regard. On 13 July 1994 the Spanish office indicated to the H Z A that the goods had not been presented to it. The original TIR carnet was finally discovered after 28 March 1994. It was found to bear a forged stamp of the 24. In February 1996 the H Z A brought an Algeciras office dated 28 March 1994, the action against BGL before the Landgericht final date for presentation of the goods. (Regional Court) in Frankfurt am Main ( G e r m a n y ) t o c l a i m t h e s u m of D E M 334 132.75 (the maximum amount of the guarantee) plus interest. In its defence document deposited on 8 May 1996, BGL claimed that the cigarettes at issue had been unloaded in Spain and that consequently only the Spanish State, and not the German State, was entitled to pursue it for payment. BGL proposed to 22. On 16 August 1994 the H Z A sent the produce witnesses to prove this allegation transporter a tax notice for D E M 3 197 500 concerning the place where the irregularity for duties and taxes payable on the goods in in question was committed. This proposal question. The transporter did not respond was not entertained. Indeed, both the to this payment demand. Landgericht Frankfurt am Main and, on appeal, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court, Germany) allowed the disputed claim for payment. BGL then lodged an appeal with the Bundesgericht- shof.

guaranteeing association, which occurred Article 454(3) of... Regulation... on 16 August 1994. Furthermore, the court No 2454/93... for furnishing proof of reference finds that the presence of a of the actual place of an offence or forged stamp on the TIR carnet does not irregularity apply also where a mean that this is a situation in which the M e m b e r State, p u r s u a n t to certificate of discharge was obtained in an Article 454(2) and the first and improper or fraudulent manner, in other s e c o n d subparagraphs of words a situation in which the time-limit Article 4 5 4 ( 3 ) of R e g u l a t i o n for furnishing proof is two years pursuant No 2454/93, brings proceedings to the second sentence of Article 11(1) of against the guaranteeing associ- the TIR C o n v e n t i o n , to which ation for the payment of customs Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 duties, and the association wishes refers. Having made these observations, the to prove in those proceedings that Bundesgerichtshof wonders whether it is the place where the offence or necessary to apply to a guaranteeing associ- irregularity was actually com- ation the time-limit for the provision of mitted is situated in a n o t h e r proof of one year that applies to the holder Member State? of a TIR carnet, in accordance with the judgment in Met-Trans and Sagpol. 12 In addition, the court of reference wonders about the respective roles of the guaran- teeing associations and the customs auth- orities in investigating where the irregular- (b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in ity was committed. the affirmative:

2. (a) Under Articles 454 and 455 of (ii) Must the Member State which Regulation No 2454/93, is the has detected the offence or Member State which finds that an irregularity, when claiming offence or irregularity has been against the guaranteeing committed in connection with a association, demonstrate and transport operation under cover of prove that such an investi- a TIR carnet obliged as against the gative obligation has been guaranteeing association, in addi- complied with?' tion to the notifications under Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to the customs office of destination, to investigate where the offence or irregularity was actually committed and who is the customs debtor within the meaning of Article 203(3) of Regu- V — Examination of the questions lation No 2913/92, by requesting referred for a preliminary ruling another Member State to lend administrative assistance in ascer- taining the facts (see Council Regu- lation No 1468/81 of 19 May 1981 27. The national court raises two series of on mutual assistance between the questions, which deal first with the time- administrative authorities of the limit for furnishing proof of the place Member States and cooperation where the irregularity was committed and between the latter and the Com- secondly with the obligation, if any, for the mission to ensure the correct appli- Member State which detected the irregu- cation of the law on customs or larity to investigate where it was com- agricultural matters)? mitted.

I - 9554

BGL

A — The time-limit for furnishing proof of on which the irregularity was notified to the place where the irregularity ivas com- the association. PFA relies in this regard on mitted the retroactive application of Regulation No 2787/2000. Nevertheless, it considers in substance that the bringing of legal proceedings bars the issue of a payment 1. Arguments of the parties demand, which has the effect of postpon- ing, for the entire duration of the proceed- ings, the date from which the time-limit is measured. Finally, both BGL and PFA maintain that the applicable time-limit for 28. Both BGL and PFA maintain that a furnishing proof is indicative, not prescrip- guaranteeing association is entitled to bring tive. proof of the place where the irregularity was committed.

I - 9555

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

limit applicable to the guaranteeing associ- expectations prohibits the retroactive appli- ation if it is not to be time-barred. How- cation of that regulation. Furthermore, ever, pursuant to the third subparagraph of contrary to the claims of PFA, in the Article 454(3) of Regulation 2454/93, the opinion of the Commission the bringing guaranteeing association has the possibil- of legal proceedings has no effect on the ity, at the expiry of that time-limit, to calculation of the time-limit applicable for obtain repayment of the sums it has been furnishing proof. Finally, in common with required to pay. the H Z A and the German Government, the Commission states that this time-limit is prescriptive and does not rule out the possibility of a subsequent repayment to the guaranteeing association.

33. For its part, the Commission of the European Communities, like BGL and PFA, considers that the guaranteeing association, as surety, is entitled to submit proof of the 2. Assessment place where the irregularity was actually committed, in the same way as the holder of the TIR carnet is entitled to do as the principal debtor. However, in contrast to BGL and PFA, the Commission maintains that the only time-limit for proof applicable 35. In the first series of questions, the to the guaranteeing association is that of national court seeks to establish, in essence: one year from the date of notification of the non-discharge of the TIR operation. It refers in this regard to the case-law of the Court on the time-limit for furnishing proof applicable to the principal debtor. 13

(a) The length of the time-limit for fur- which I shall enlarge below — this case- nishing proof law is bound to be transposed to them. It is therefore important to remind the national court that, if the TIR carnet is not dis- charged or is discharged conditionally, the time-limit for furnishing proof laid down in the version of Regulation No 2454/93 in force at the time of the facts in the case is one year, and not two years. 36. In Question 1(b)(i), the national court asks in essence whether Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93 and Article 11 of the TIR Convention to which it refers are to be interpreted as meaning that the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where an irregularity was com- mitted — in the event of the non-discharge or conditional discharge of a TIR carnet — is limited to one year or extends to two years. 38. Contrary to the claims of PFA, no other reply can be given on this point in favour of a supposed retroactive application of amending Regulation No 2787/2000. Indeed, the first s u b p a r a g r a p h -of Article 4(2) of that regulation indicates that 'points 2 to 80 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 July 2001'. The provisions relating to the contested time-limit for furnishing 37. As all the parties in the present pro- proof fall within the scope of this rule. 16 It ceedings have stated, the Court has already is apparent from this that the Community had occasion to reply to this question as far legislature was careful to exclude expressly as the time-limit for proof applicable to the the possibility of retroactive application of holder of a TIR carnet is concerned. 14 It Regulation No 2787/2000 as far as the delivered the following findings: 'the first amending provisions in question are con- subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regu- cerned. In other words, to permit the lation No 2454/93 unambiguously refers, retroactive application of Regulation as regards the length of the period in No 2787/2000 would be to disregard the question, to Article 455(1) of that regu- clear and precise provisions of that regu- lation. Article 455(1) in turn refers, as lation as to its temporal scope. It follows regards the time-limit it lays down, to that Regulation No 2787/2000 was not Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention. applicable at the date of the facts in the case Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention men- for the purposes of determining the length tions only one time-limit, namely a period of the time-limit for furnishing proof. That of one year'. 15 As these provisions apply to having been said, as the national court has guaranteeing associations — a point on rightly pointed out, there remains a doubt

39. It is apparent from the foregoing that 41. The system of external transit under Regulation No 2454/93, which alone is cover of a TIR carnet gives the competent applicable at the date of the facts in the customs authorities an assurance that the case — to the exclusion of Regulation payment of duties and taxes that may No 2787/2000 — is to be interpreted as become payable will be covered by a meaning that it lays down a time-limit of guaranteeing association if the holder of one year for furnishing proof of the place the TIR carnet defaults. The competent where an irregularity was committed if the customs authorities are, in principle, those TIR carnet was not discharged or was of the place where the irregularity is com- discharged conditionally. mitted unless it is impossible to establish that place, which justifies granting compet- ence to the authorities that detected the irregularity. Consequently, if it is proved that the irregularity was committed in a Member State other than the one which initiated the recovery procedure, that pro- (b) The enforceability of the time-limit for cedure cannot succeed because the auth- furnishing proof against the guaranteeing orities do not have competence to take association in the context of legal proceed- action. In other words, proof of the place ings where the irregularity was committed may be adduced as a ground of defence. The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, which provides for grounds of defence of this type, can be fully effective only if this plea can be relied upon by the guaranteeing association as 40. In order to answer the question as to well as the holder of the TIR carnet. The the enforceability of the time-limit for guaranteeing association is obliged to pay furnishing proof against the guaranteeing sums claimed 'jointly and severally' with association in the framework of legal pro- the principal debtor. 17 Furthermore, the ceedings it is first necessary to establish association must enjoy the same grounds of whether the guaranteeing association is defence as those accorded to the holder of entitled to adduce such proof. The question the TIR carnet. The principle of equality of is a valid one, because the first subpara- arms between the parties to proceedings graph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 does not state who is entitled to do so. In common with BGL, PFA and 17— See the second sentence of Article 8(1) of the TIR the Commission, I believe that this pre- Convention.

44. Since the reliance of the holder of the 42. This conclusion is all the more com- TIR carnet on such proof is subject to a pelling in view of the nature of the pre- time-limit, the same must apply to the sumption that the customs authorities guaranteeing association, in accordance which detected the irregularity in question with the ancillary nature of its claim and have competence. It is a simple presump- the principle of equality of arms among the tion, in other words it can be overturned by parties. Furthermore, if the intention of the proof to the contrary. To allow only the Community legislature had been to exempt holder of the TIR carnet to make use of this the guaranteeing association from a tem- possibility, and not also the guaranteeing poral constraint for furnishing the proof in association, would in many cases preclude question it would presumably have taken overturning the presumption in question. care to state that. It has to be found that Indeed, it emerges from the report of the that is not the case, as the first subpara- European Parliament of 20 February 1997 graph of Article 454(3) of Regulation on the Community transit regime (here- No 2454/93 embodies that right to furnish inafter the 'enquiry report') that claims the proof in question within a certain against guaranteeing associations are very time-limit, without distinguishing between frequent. 19 This finding also applies to the unspecified beneficiaries of that right. external transit under cover of a TIR carnet. This simple presumption would therefore become virtually incontestable, contrary to the provisions of Regulation No 2454/93.

N o 2454/93 applies exclusively to 'extraju- suggests that the provisions apply to extra- dicial' proof. 2 0 I share that view. judicial proof, since it is to be assessed by the customs authorities and not by a court. Furthermore, the provisions in the last sentence of Article 11(2) of the TIR Con- vention shed no light on this point, as they 46. In my opinion, this question of the relate to the time-limit for making the claim time-limit for furnishing proof has to be for payment following legal proceedings, examined in the light of the principle of and not the time-limit for furnishing proof procedural autonomy. According to settled of the place where the irregularity was case-law, 2 1 in the absence of relevant committed. It is apparent from these con- Community rules, it is for the national siderations that the Member States remain legal order of each Member State to free to regulate the question of the time- designate the competent courts and to lay limit for proof applicable in the context of down the procedural rules for proceedings legal proceedings, subject to compliance designed to ensure the protection of the with the principles of equivalence and rights which individuals acquire through effectiveness. What concrete conclusions the direct effect of Community law, pro- can be drawn from this analysis? In my vided that such rules are not less favourable view, a distinction must be made between a than those governing similar domestic number of different sets of circumstances. actions and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.

I - 9560

BGL

50. A third set of circumstances is that in which the customs authorities have taken judicial recovery proceedings against the guaranteeing association after expiry of the one-year time-limit applicable in the administrative procedure. In this case, a distinction has to be made between two situations. First, if the guaranteeing associ- 49. A second set of circumstances may arise ation has used the proof in question during where the customs authorities have initi- the administrative procedure — within the ated judicial recovery proceedings before permitted time-limit — but that proof has expiry of the one-year time-limit for fur- not satisfied the customs authorities, the nishing proof that is applicable for the guaranteeing association is entitled to administrative procedure in question. In introduce it again before a court and is this case, the guaranteeing association not required to comply with a new time- remains entitled to submit the contested limit. In other words, the expiry of the

See to this effect the judgments i n Cases C-261/95 Palmisam [1997] ings. To permit the opposite would risk Preston and Others, cited above, paragraph 33. encouraging delaying tactics tainted with

53. A reading of the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation N o 2454/93 could lead one to think that it refers to 5 1 . Consequently, I propose that the Court Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention on the reply to question 1(a) from the national length of the time-limit and on the point at court t h a t the first s u b p a r a g r a p h of which it begins. A reading of Article 11(1) Article 454(3) of Regulation N o 2454/93 of that Convention in conjunction with the is to be interpreted as meaning that the second paragraph of the same article would time-limit set for furnishing proof of the also cause one to think that the starting place where the irregularity was committed point of this time-limit is set as the date of applies only where such proof is furnished notification of non-discharge or con- in an administrative recovery procedure ditional discharge. 24 However, I consider and not in judicial proceedings. I also that this interpretation is to be rejected, propose that the Court indicates, never- because it conflicts with the fundamental theless, that the expiry of this time-limit is principle of respect for the right to a fair enforceable against a guaranteeing associ- hearing. ation using such proof in judicial proceed- ings if it failed to do so within the permitted time-limit in a previous administrative procedure, and that in this case the evi- dence in question is inadmissible. 54. In accordance with settled case-law, the Court considers that this fundamental principle requires that, even in the absence of specific procedural rules, a person against whom a measure is liable to be taken which may gravely prejudice that person's interests must be placed in a (c) The starting point of the time-limit for furnishing proof position effectively to make known his views. 2 5

55. What is the scope of this fundamental last moment before serving a payment principle in the context of the procedure demand on the guaranteeing association, established by Regulation No 2454/93? in other words almost two years after The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) having notified the irregularity. If so, the of that regulation expressly provides for the guaranteeing association's time-limit for possibility of furnishing proof of the place furnishing proof would have expired where the irregularity in question was almost a year earlier. It could therefore committed. As I have already indicated, not submit this proof during the adminis- the use of this evidence is equivalent to that trative procedure. It is true that, in accord- of a ground of defence. Now, it is obvious ance with the principle of the right to a fair that a person against whom recovery pro- hearing, it could use it subsequently in ceedings have been taken is not able to raise judicial proceedings without the expiry of a this ground of defence until he has actually time-limit for furnishing proof that it had been notified of the claim for payment been unable to use being enforced against against him and provided that at that time it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this the time-limit for that purpose has not would be contrary to the fundamental expired. principle of observance of the rights of defence that have to be respected in an administrative procedure.

I - 9563

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-78/01

I - 9564

BGl.

Regulation No 2454/93 and in Article 215 resources and not to enable operators to of Regulation 2913/92. They add that evade their responsibilities. Regulation No 1468/81, 2 8 in the version in force at the time of the facts in the case, gives Member States the means of cooper- ation needed to meet this investigative obligation. They deduce from this that the Member State must prove that it has met 2. Assessment this obligation and that, if it has not done so, the presumption of competence in its favour is to be set aside.

64. I consider that Article 454 of Regu- lation No 2454/93 is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which detects an irregularity is not required to investigate either where that irregularity was committed or the identity of the 62. In contrast to BGL and PFA, the HZA customs debtors. This interpretation is and the German Government deny the based both on the wording of the provi- existence of such an obligation to investi- sions in question and on the intention of the gate. They point out, in particular, that the Community legislature. creation of an obligation to investigate would effectively overturn the burden of proof on the guaranteeing association or the principal debtor to establish the place where the irregularity was committed. 65. As far as the wording of Article 454 of Regulation No 2454/93 is concerned, it has to be stated that it contains no provision to this effect.

that detected the irregularity can operate. It Member States a duty of diligence to does not assume that these circumstances ascertain that an irregularity or offence must prove to favour a fruitless investi- has occurred 3 0 and consequently to initiate gation to ascertain indirectly where the a recovery procedure. They do not mean irregularity was committed by identifying that the Member States that detect an the customs debtors, and that this investi- irregularity are only entitled to initiate a gation must be undertaken by the customs recovery procedure after having satisfied authorities in question. To concede the themselves, as the result of an investigation, opposite would in practice introduce a that the place where that irregularity was fresh irregularity into the recovery pro- committed cannot be determined. cedure against the guaranteeing association in addition to those provided for in Article 11(1) and (2) of the TIR Conven-

Indeed, to await the results of an investigation to ascertain where an irregularity was com- m i t t e d — w h i c h often p r o v e s fruit- l e s s 3 1 — only delays measures to deal with and punish the irregularity, contrary to the duty of diligence placed on Member States by the provisions in question. More- over, there is a danger that this situation will lead to the recovery procedure being barred through lapse of time and hence to

These difficulties alties'. These provisions simply place on the stem primarily from the fact that the offence or irregularity is associated with organised crime (see points 3.3.1, 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 of the enquiry report, cited above). Cigarettes are the preferred target of this form of criminality, as they are easy to handle and bear high rates of excise duty (see 29 — Case C-112/01 [2002] ECR I-10655, paragraph 35. points 1.1.5 and 4.2.1.4 of the enquiry report).

70. This system of presumption thus makes it possible to reconcile the different inter- ests involved in a TIR operation. This is true of the Community's interests, as the duties and taxes accruing to it in the form of own resources can be duly recovered on account of the commission of an irregular- ity that terminates the preferential regime 69. In this regard, it is necessary to recall that is the external transit regime. It is also the words of the Court in the Met-Trans true of the Member States that detect an and Sagpol judgment. At paragraph 37 it irregularity, as they are entitled to collect stated that 'the compensation regime pro- national duties and taxes through a vided for in the third and fourth subpara- recovery procedure intended to preserve graphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation the interests of the Community. It is also No 2454/93 institutes a mechanism for true of the Member States where it turns simplifying the administrative aspect and out that the irregularity was committed, recovering duties and other charges in cases because they are then entitled to collect the where uncertainty as to the place where the national duties in question. Finally, it is offences or irregularities vis-à-vis the cus- true of the operators, be they users, in other toms provisions were committed might words beneficiaries of this preferential result in the sums owed being lost alto- trade facilitation regime, or guaranteeing gether'. It added that 'with that situation in associations, as they can first contest the mind, it is provided that, where the recovery procedure initiated by the Member State in which the offence was Member State that detected the irregularity committed cannot be determined with by furnishing proof — within a given certainty, a provisional presumption arises time-limit — that the irregularity was that the Member State in which the offence committed in another Member State where or irregularity was detected has compet- the level of taxation is lower, and hence be ence'. Finally, it stated that 'where it is prosecuted exclusively by that other subsequently established that the first State Member State, and secondly obtain repay- did have competence, the presumption in ment of excess national duties and taxes favour of the second State is rebutted and a applicable by furnishing this proof again. compensation mechanism comes into oper- Indeed, contrary to the claims made at the ation between the two Member States, thus hearing by BGL, it is apparent from

33 — This question about ascertaining the identity of the holder and user of the TIR carnet should no longer arise. Since 17 February 1999, the date on which Annex 9 of the TIR Convention came into effect, persons seeking access to the TIR regime must be authorised by the customs authorities. Such authorisation is subject to conditions, in particular the absence of convictions for serious or repeated offences 72. These considerations are valid both for against customs or tax legislation. The guaranteeing associations may issue TIR carnets only to persons in the obligation to investigate where the possession of such authorisation. Under a recommendation adopted by the Administrative Committee for the TIR Convention on 20 October 2000 and brought into effect on 1 April 2001 — pending the entry into force of the next amendment of the Convention — an individual 32 — These considerations can be equated to those adopted by identification number is allocated by the customs auth- the Court in the Met-Trans and Sagpol judgment with orities as part of the authorisation procedure and is entered regard to an administrative agreement between Member in the TIR carnet, under the supervision of the guaran- States prescribing a shorter time-limit than that foreseen in teeing association, in addition to the name and address of Regulation N o 2454/93 (paragraph 48). the persons concerned.

I - 9568

BGL

73. Consequently, I propose that the Court actually committed or the identity of the reply to question 2(a) from the national customs debtors. court that the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which detects an offence or 74. As the reply to that question is in the irregularity is not required to investigate negative, part (b) of the second question where the offence or irregularity was does not call for a reply.

(3) The starting point of the one-year time-limit for furnishing proof that is applicable in the context of an administrative procedure and enforceable — in the circumstances described above — in the context of judicial proceed- ings is the date of receipt of the claim for payment by the person to whom it is addressed.

(4) The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which detects an offence or irregularity is not required to investigate where the offence or irregularity was actually committed or the identity of the customs debtors.

I - 9570