„Baltic Master“ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2022:457
• Date: 09 June 2022
• Docket Number: C-599/20
• Celex Number: 62020CJ0599
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

9 June 2022 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 29 – Determination of the customs value – Transaction value – Article 29(1)(d) – Concept of ‘related persons’ – Article 31 – Account taken of information derived from a national database for the purpose of determining the customs value – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) – Situations in which persons are deemed to be related – Article 181a – Doubts based on the veracity of the price declared)

In Case C‑599/20,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), made by decision of 3 November 2020, received at the Court on 13 November 2020, in the proceedings

‘Baltic Master’ UAB

v

Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos,

interested party:

Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of A. Prechal, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, F. Biltgen, N. Wahl (Rapporteur) and M.L. Arastey Sahún, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Emiliou,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 17 November 2021,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– ‘Baltic Master’ UAB, by D. Aukštuolytė, advokatė,

– the Lithuanian Government, by K. Dieninis, S. Grigonis and V. Kazlauskaitė-Švenčionienė, acting as Agents,

– the Czech Government, by O. Serdula, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

– the Estonian Government, by N. Grünberg, acting as Agent,

– the Spanish Government, by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, acting as Agent,

– the French Government, by G. Bain, A.-L. Desjonquères, D. Dubois and C. Mosser, acting as Agents,

– the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and A. Hanje, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 January 2022,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 29(1)(d) and of Article 31(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 1) (‘the Community Customs Code’), and of Article 143(b), (e) and (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999 (OJ 1999 L 10, p. 1) (‘the Implementing Regulation’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between ‘Baltic Master’ UAB and the Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Customs Department attached to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania) concerning the determination of the customs value of certain imported goods.

Legal context

The Community Customs Code

3 Article 29(1) and (2) of the Community Customs Code provides:

‘1. The customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, that is, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community, adjusted, where necessary, in accordance with Articles 32 and 33, provided:

…

(d) that the buyer and seller are not related, or, where the buyer and seller are related, that the transaction value is acceptable for customs purposes under paragraph 2.

2. (a) In determining whether the transaction value is acceptable for the purposes of paragraph 1, the fact that the buyer and the seller are related shall not in itself be sufficient grounds for regarding the transaction value as unacceptable. Where necessary, the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the relationship did not influence the price. If, in the light of information provided by the declarant or otherwise, the customs authorities have grounds for considering that the relationship influenced the price, they shall communicate their grounds to the declarant and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. If the declarant so requests, the communication of the grounds shall be in writing.

(b) In a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall be accepted and the goods valued in accordance with paragraph 1 wherever the declarant demonstrates that such value closely approximates to one of the following occurring at or about the same time:

(i) the transaction value in sales, between buyers and sellers who are not related in any particular case, of identical or similar goods for export to the Community;

(ii) the customs value of identical or similar goods, as determined under Article 30(2)(c);

(iii) the customs value of identical or similar goods, as determined under Article 30(2)(d).

In applying the foregoing tests, due account shall be taken of demonstrated differences in commercial levels, quantity levels, the elements enumerated in Article 32 and costs incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are not related and where such costs are not incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer are related.

(c) The tests set forth in subparagraph (b) are to be used at the initiative of the declarant and only for comparison purposes. Substitute values may not be established under the said subparagraph.’

4 Article 30 of that regulation provides:

‘1. Where the customs value cannot be determined under Article 29, it is to be determined by proceeding sequentially through subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 to the first subparagraph under which it can be determined, subject to the proviso that the order of application of subparagraphs (c) and (d) shall be reversed if the declarant so requests; it is only when such value cannot be determined under a particular subparagraph that the provisions of the next subparagraph in a sequence established by virtue of this paragraph can be applied.

2. The customs value as determined under this Article shall be:

(a) the transaction value of identical goods sold for export to the Community and exported at or about the same time as the goods being valued;

(b) the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to the Community and exported at or about the same time as the goods being valued;

(c) the value based on the unit price at which the imported goods for identical or similar imported goods are sold within the Community in the greatest aggregate quantity to persons not related to the sellers;

(d) the computed value, consisting of the sum of:

– the cost or value of materials and fabrication or other processing employed in producing the imported goods,

– an amount for profit and general expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of goods of the same class or kind as the goods being valued which are made by producers in the country of exportation for export to the Community,

– the cost or value of the items referred to in Article 32(1)(e).

3. Any further conditions and rules for the application of paragraph 2 above shall be determined in accordance with the committee procedure.’

5 Article 31 of that code provides:

‘1. Where the customs value of imported goods cannot be determined under Articles 29 or 30, it shall be determined, on the basis of data available in the Community, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of:

– the agreement on implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994,

– Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994,

– the provisions of this chapter.

2. No customs value shall be determined under paragraph 1 on the basis of:

(a) the selling price in the Community of goods produced in the Community;

(b) a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values;

(c) the price of goods on the domestic market of the country of exportation;

(d) the cost of production, other than computed values which have been determined for identical or similar goods in accordance with Article 30(2)(d);

(e) prices for export to a country not forming part of the customs territory of the Community;

(f) minimum customs values; or

(g) arbitrary or fictitious values.’

The Implementing Regulation

6 Article 142(1)(d) of the Implementing Regulation states:

‘For the purposes of this title:

…

(d) “similar goods” means goods produced in the same country which, although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable; the quality of the goods, their reputation and the existence of a trademark are among the factors to be considered in determining whether goods are similar.’

7 Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) of that regulation provides:

‘For the purposes of Title II, Chapter 3 of the Code and of this Title, persons shall be deemed to be related only if:

…

(b) they are legally recognised partners in business;

…

(e) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other;

(f) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person.’

8 Article 181a of that regulation provides:

‘1. The customs authorities need not determine the customs valuation of imported goods on the basis of the transaction value method if, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 2, they are not satisfied, on the basis of reasonable doubts, that the declared value represents the total amount paid or payable as referred to in Article 29 of the Code.

2. Where the customs authorities have the doubts described in paragraph 1 they may...