Procedure : 2012/0027(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0006/2013

Texts tabled :

A7-0006/2013

Debates :

PV 10/09/2013 - 24

Votes :

PV 11/09/2013 - 5.10

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2013)0359

REPORT     ***I
PDF 624kWORD 1007k
26 February 2013
PE 494.493v06-00 A7-0006/2013

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (recast)

(COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012 – 2012/0027(COD))

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Rapporteur: Constance Le Grip

(Recast – Rule 87 of the Rules of Procedure)

AMENDMENTS
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
 ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
 OPINION of the Committee on International Trade
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (recast)

(COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012 – 2012/0027(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0064),

–   having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 33, 114 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0045/2012),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   after transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 May 2012(1),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(2),

–   having regard to the letter of 12 July 2012 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Rules 87 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0006/2013),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment                1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) In order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of: the adoption within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation of a work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems; decisions allowing one or several Member States to use means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques; decisions authorising Member States to test simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques; decisions requesting Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision; common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas; the management of the tariff quota and tariff ceilings and the management of the surveillance of the release for free circulation or export of goods; the determination of the tariff classification of goods; the temporary derogation from the rules on preferential origin of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union; the determination of the origin of goods; the temporary prohibitions relating to the use of comprehensive guarantees; the mutual assistance between the customs authorities in case of incurrence of a customs debt; decisions on repayment or remission of an amount of import or export duty; the official opening hours of customs offices; the determination of the tariff subheading of the goods which are subject to the highest rate of import or export duty where a consignment is made of goods falling under different tariff subheadings; Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

(4) In order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of: the adoption within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation of a work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems; decisions allowing one or several Member States to use means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques; decisions authorising Member States to test simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques; decisions requesting Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision; common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas; the management of the tariff quota and tariff ceilings and the management of the surveillance of the release for free circulation or export of goods; the determination of the tariff classification of goods and the creation of unified customs duty collection systems in all Member States; the temporary derogation from the rules on preferential origin of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union; the determination of the origin and traceability of goods from third countries; the temporary prohibitions relating to the use of comprehensive guarantees; the mutual assistance between the customs authorities in case of incurrence of a customs debt; decisions on repayment or remission of an amount of import or export duty; the official opening hours of customs offices; the determination of the tariff subheading of the goods which are subject to the highest rate of import or export duty where a consignment is made of goods falling under different tariff subheadings; Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

Justification

It is essential for consumer protection and for EU industry for the Commission to be able to adopt measures on traceability of the origin of products transiting EU customs from third countries, as a means of prevention and of combating counterfeiting.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a) Further modernisation of the Union's customs legislation should take due account of the views of economic operators in order to ensure effective administrative simplification.

Justification

Consultation of economic operators in any future reform of the Union Customs Code is one of the essential elements leading to an efficient simplification of customs procedures.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) In the interests of facilitating business, all persons should continue to have the right to appoint a representative in their dealings with the customs authorities. However, it should no longer be possible for that right of representation to be reserved under a law laid down by one of the Member States. Furthermore, a customs representative who complies with the criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator, should be entitled to provide his services in a Member State other than the one where he is established.

(18) In the interests of facilitating the clearance of trade transactions, all persons should continue to have the right to appoint a representative in their dealings with the customs authorities. However, it should no longer be possible for that right of representation to be reserved under a law laid down by one of the Member States. Harmonised Union rules should therefore be laid down for customs representatives operating in the single market. Furthermore, a customs representative who complies with the criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator, should be entitled to provide his services in a Member State other than the one where he is established provided that he satisfies harmonised Union-wide criteria and hence can use unified customs duty collection systems.

Justification

If authorised economic operators and customs representatives are to be authorised to provide services in all the Member States, unified customs duty collection systems should also be ensured in order to simplify and accelerate customs services across the EU.

In order to ensure the uniformity of rules for customs representatives in the EU27 and avoid any possible long-term distortions to the single market, these rules should be laid down at the EU level.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Compliant and trustworthy economic operators should, as ‘authorised economic operators’, be able to take maximum advantage of widespread use of simplification and, taking account of security and safety aspects, benefit from reduced levels of customs control. They may thus enjoy the status of authorised economic operator for customs simplifications or the status of authorised economic operator for security and safety. They may be granted one or other status, or both together.

(19) Compliant and trustworthy economic operators who help to protect the customs clearance chain and the Union's financial interests should, as "authorised economic operators", be able to take maximum advantage of widespread use of simplification and, taking account of security and safety aspects, should enjoy practical benefits including reduced levels of customs control. They may thus enjoy the status of authorised economic operator for customs simplifications or the status of authorised economic operator for security and safety. They may be granted one or other status, or both together.

Justification

It needs to be stated more clearly in the Union Customs Code that authorised economic operators will be given more favourable treatment.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19a) Compliant and trustworthy economic operators should benefit from international agreements that provide for the mutual recognition of 'authorised economic operators' status.

Justification

The conclusion of cooperation agreements on the mutual recognition of the authorized economic operators (AEO) should be one of the priorities in ongoing trade negotiations, especially those of deep and comprehensive trade agreements between the EU and third countries.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 - point 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

11. ‘declaration for temporary storage’ means the act whereby a person indicates, in the prescribed form and manner, that goods are placed or intended to be placed under that procedure;

11. ‘declaration for temporary storage’ means the act whereby a person indicates, in the prescribed form and manner, that goods are or are intended to be in temporary storage;

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 - point 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

14a. ‘temporary storage’ means a situation in which non-Union goods are temporarily stored, under customs supervision, between their presentation to customs and their placement under a customs procedure;

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 - point 31 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the person who presents the goods which are deemed to have been placed under the temporary storage procedure until the declaration for temporary storage is lodged, or the person on whose behalf the goods are presented;

deleted

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 - point 31 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the person who lodges the declaration for the temporary storage procedure or on whose behalf that declaration is lodged;

deleted

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission may adopt decisions allowing one or several Member States to use, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques.

3. The Commission may adopt, in exceptional cases and for a limited period of time, decisions allowing one or several Member States to use, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques. Such derogations shall not affect the developing, maintenance and employment of the electronic systems for the exchange of data referred to in paragraph 1.

Justification

It is essential that the Union Customs Code (UCC) is implemented and applied in the same way in all 27 Member States in order to preserve the fundamental spirit of pan-European e-customs as originally outlined in the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). Exceptionally, derogations are allowed for a limited period of time for one or several Member States. Specifications on the criteria granting derogations should be dealt through delegated acts (rapporteur’s AM 2, Article 7a (new)).

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 7a

 

Delegation of power

 

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 243, specifying the criteria for granting the derogation referred to in Article 6(3).

Justification

It is essential that the Union Customs Code (UCC) is implemented and applied in the same way in all 27 Member States in order to preserve the fundamental spirit of pan-European e-customs as originally outlined in the Modernised Customs Code (MCC). Exceptionally, derogations are allowed for a limited period of time for one or several Member States. Specifications on the criteria for granting derogations to Article 6(3) should be dealt with at the level of delegated acts.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Commission may authorise the Member States, on their request, to test for a limited period of time simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques.

2. The Commission may authorise one or more Member States, at their request, to test, for a limited period of time, further simplifications in the application of the customs legislation. Such tests shall be available to all Members States. Those simplifications shall include non-essential elements of this Regulation concerning the use of electronic data-processing techniques related to the following:

 

(a) applications and authorisations concerning a customs procedure or the status of authorised economic operator;

 

(b) applications and special decisions granted in accordance with Article 32;

 

(c) common risk management, as referred to in Article 39;

 

(d) the standard form and content of the data to be registered;

 

(e) maintenance of those data, by the customs authorities of Members States;

 

(f) the rules for access to those data by:

 

(i) economic operators,

 

(ii) other competent authorities.

 

Once the time limit of the test has expired, the Commission shall undertake an evaluation in order to determine its benefits.

Justification

It should be clarified that tests (pilots) of simplifications should be available to all Member States that wish to participate.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243 laying down the rules for developing, maintaining and employing the electronic systems for the exchange of the data referred to in Article 15(1).

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243 laying down :

 

(a) the rules for developing, maintaining and employing the electronic systems for the exchange of the data referred to in Article 15(1);

 

(b) a work programme, relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems referred to in Article 15(1), which shall be laid down by ...*.

 

____________

 

* OJ: please enter the date: six months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Justification

Considering that the implementation of the Work Programme (WP) contains elements of secondary political orientation (e.g. priorities, adjustment to breakdown of the budget, indicators to measure the performance), this should be dealt with at the level of delegated acts (in accordance with Article 290 TFEU) and not through implementing acts.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243 amending the non-essential elements referred to in Article 15(2) when the simplifications tested by one or more Member States have been evaluated to be successful and beneficial for the other Member States.

Justification

This AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 3 to Article 15(2), second subparagraph. The non-essential elements referred in Article 15(2) should be amended when the simplifications tested by one or several Member States have been found to be successful and beneficial for the other Member States.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall, within 6 months of the entry into force of this Regulation, adopt by means of implementing acts a work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems referred to in Article 15(1). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 244(4).

deleted

Justification

Considering that the implementation of the Work Programme (WP) contains elements of secondary political orientation (e.g. priorities, adjustment to breakdown of the budget, indicators to measure the performance), this should be dealt with at the level of delegated acts (in accordance with Article 290 TFEU) and not through implementing acts.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. A customs representative shall be established within the customs territory of the Union.

2. A customs representative shall be established within the customs territory of the Union.

That obligation may be waived in certain cases.

 

Justification

The rapporteur is in favour of deleting all references to waiving the obligation for the customs representative to be within the customs territory of the EU.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may establish, in accordance with Union law, the conditions under which a customs representative may provide services in the Member State where he is established. However, without prejudice to the application of less stringent criteria by the Member State concerned, a customs representative who complies with the criteria laid down in Article 22(a), to (d) shall be entitled to provide such services in a Member State other than the one where he is established.

3. Member States may establish, in accordance with Union law, the conditions under which a customs representative may provide services in the Member State where he is established. A customs representative must be established on the territory of the Union. In order to provide customs services in a Member State other than the one where he is established, a customs representative must have an authorisation, granted by the competent national customs authority on the basis of common criteria applicable throughout the territory of the Union and valid in all Member States.

Justification

The customs representative should not be confused with the AEO. These two figures need to be kept separated, since they have different nature and aims (the AEO is a status, the customs representative a working activity that in certain EU Member States is regulated as a profession). Accordingly, the possibility for a customs representative to provide customs services in a Member State other than the one where he is established, should be based on separate criteria, different from those referred to the AEO, highlighting specific requirements in terms of reliability, competence and experience. The necessity to introduce common criteria at EU level for the provision of customs representation services in member States other than the one where the customs representative is established, aims to avoid that Member States will create excessive obstacles or different degrees of difficulty in obtaining the above authorisation. This solution, among other things, reflects the point n. 34. of the Report of the European Parliament of 25 November 2011 on modernisation of customs (2011/2083(INI)), that “Calls on the Commission to include in the MCC more rigorous requirements for the provision of the EU’s customs representation services, helping to increase the level of professionalism and ownership on the part of these intermediaries and laying down clear rules to guide relations between customs agents and forwarding undertakings, so as to change the role of the agents to that of consolidators for small and medium-sized importers that do not have the capacity to implement customs compliance programmes similar to those of European AEOs”.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 - paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. Paragraph 2 shall not prevent Member States from applying the conditions that they have defined in accordance with the first sentence of paragraph 3 to a customs representative not established within the customs territory of the Union.

Justification

There exist certain cases when the customs representative does not need to be established in the EU.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 - point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the cases where the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) is waived;

deleted

Justification

In accordance with the rapporteur's am. 7

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. An economic operator who is established in the customs territory of the Union and who meets the criteria set out in Article 22 may apply for the status of authorised economic operator.

1. An economic operator who is established in the customs territory of the Union and who meets the criteria set out in Article 22 may apply for the status of authorised economic operator.

The obligation to be established in the customs territory of the Union may be waived in certain cases.

 

Justification

The rapporteur is in favour of deleting all references to waiving the obligation for the economic operator to be within the customs territory of the EU. AM linked to the rapporteur’s AM 14 to Article 23.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) that of an authorised economic operator for security and safety that shall entitle the holder thereof to facilitations relating to security and safety.

(b) that of an authorised economic operator for security and safety that shall entitle the holder thereof to facilitations relating to security and safety, including fewer controls at the point of import or export and may also be taken into account for post-clearance controls.

Justification

The link between the AEO and reduced customs controls is not adequately articulated in the Commission's proposal. It is essential for this to be stated clearly in the basic act. The new EU AEO Guidelines mention that AEO's benefits include “fewer controls at the point of importation or exportation and can be taken into account for post clearance controls as well". N.B.: this part of the text should be considered amendable as it refers to the content of a grey text (Article 23(e)).

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 - paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

6a. Holders of the status of authorised economic operator as referred to in paragraph 2 shall enjoy more favourable treatment, in accordance with the type of certificate held, referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph (2).

Justification

It needs to be stated more clearly in the Union Customs Code that authorised economic operators will be given more favourable treatment.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 - paragraph 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

6b. Applications from authorised economic operators shall be dealt with first.

Justification

It needs to be clearly stated in the Union Customs Code that authorised economic operators will be given priority treatment.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator shall be the following:

1. The criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator shall be the following:

(a) a record of compliance with customs and tax requirements;

(a) a record of compliance with customs and tax requirements;

(b) a satisfactory system of managing commercial and, where appropriate, transport records, which allows appropriate customs controls;

(b) a satisfactory system of managing commercial and, where appropriate, transport records, which allows appropriate customs controls;

(c) proven solvency;

(c) proven solvency;

(d) with regard to the authorisation referred to in Article 21(2)(a), practical standards of competence or professional qualifications directly related to the activity carried out;

(d) with regard to the authorisation referred to in Article 21(2)(a), practical standards of competence or professional qualifications directly related to the activity carried out;

(e) with regard to the authorisation referred to in Article 21(2)(b), appropriate security and safety standards.

(e) with regard to the authorisation referred to in Article 21(2)(b), appropriate security and safety standards.

 

1a. The record of compliance referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be considered to be appropriate where, over the previous three years, no serious infringement or repeated infringements of customs legislation and taxation rules governing the entry, exit, movement, storage and end-use of goods have been committed by the applicant or by the person in charge of the applicant company or exercising control over its management, or by the person responsible in the applicant company for customs matters.

Justification

The main conditions for AEO status are essential aspects. Therefore, the rapporteur considers it crucial to make them more explicit in the basic act. Supplementary details could, nevertheless, be dealt with through delegated acts (Article 23 of the UCC recast), in order to maintain a certain flexibility and simplification of the legislative text. The new paragraphs proposed by the rapporteur (see the rapporteur's AMs 10, 11,12,13 on Art. 22 paragraph 1b/c/d new) are, at the moment, only included in the consolidated preliminary MCCIP.

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b. The management system referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be considered to be satisfactory where the applicant demonstrates a high level of control of its operations and of the flow of goods.

Justification

The main conditions for AEO status are essential aspects. Therefore, the rapporteur considers it crucial to make them more explicit in the basic act. Supplementary details could, nevertheless, be dealt with through delegated acts (Article 23 of the UCC recast), in order to maintain a certain flexibility and simplification of the legislative text. The new paragraphs proposed by the rapporteur (see the rapporteur's AMs 10,11,12,13) are, at the moment, only included in the consolidated preliminary MCCIP.

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1c. The solvency referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1 shall be considered to be proven where the applicant has a good financial standing which is sufficient to fulfil his commitments, with due regard to the characteristics of the type of the business activity concerned.

Justification

The main conditions for AEO status are essential aspects. Therefore, the rapporteur considers it crucial to make them more explicit in the basic act. Supplementary details could, nevertheless, be dealt with through delegated acts (Article 23 of the UCC recast), in order to maintain a certain flexibility and simplification of the legislative text. The new paragraphs proposed by the rapporteur (see the rapporteur's AMs 10,11,12,13) are, at the moment, only included in the consolidated preliminary MCCIP.

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 1 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1d. The security and safety standards referred to in point (e) of paragraph 1 shall be considered to be appropriate where the applicant demonstrates that it maintains appropriate measures to ensure the security and safety of the international supply chain including in the areas of physical integrity, personnel and business partner security.

Justification

The main conditions for AEO status are essential aspects. Therefore, the rapporteur considers it crucial to make them more explicit n the basic act. Supplementary details could, nevertheless, be dealt with through delegated acts (Article 23 of the UCC recast), in order to maintain a certain flexibility and simplification of the legislative text. The new paragraphs proposed by the rapporteur (see the rapporteur's AMs 10,11,12,13) are, at the moment, only included in the consolidated preliminary MCCIP.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying: 

1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, supplementing the provisions of this Regulation concerning: 

(a) the rules for  granting the status of authorised economic operator referred to in Article 21 ;

 

(b) the cases where the obligation for an authorised economic operator to be established in the customs territory of the Union is  waived in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 21(1) ;

 

(c) the facilitations referred to in Article 21(2) (b).

(c) the granting of authorisations allowing the use of simplifications by authorised economic operators;

 

(d) identification of the customs authority competent for the granting of such status and authorisations;

 

(e) the type and extent of facilitations that may be granted to authorised economic operators in respect of customs controls relating to security and safety;

 

(f) consultation with and provision of information to other customs authorities;

 

(g) the conditions under which the status of authorised economic operator may be suspended or revoked;

 

2. The supplementing conditions referred to in paragraph 1 shall take account of the following covered by this Regulation:

 

(a) the facilitations referred to in Article 21(2)(b);

 

(b) the rules pursuant to Article 39(3),

 

(c) professional involvement in activities covered by customs legislation;

 

(d) practical standards of competence or professional qualifications directly related to the activity carried out;

 

(e) the requirement that the economic operator is the holder of any internationally recognised certificate issued on the basis of relevant international conventions.

Justification

The BA should explicitly define the objective, content and scope of a delegated act. Here, the rapporteur re-proposes (with a few necessary adaptations) the MCC specification included in Article 15 of the MCC. N.B.: this AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 9 to Article 21(2)(b) and AM 17 to Article 39(3).

The rapporteur is also in favour of deleting all references to waiving the obligation for the economic operator to be within the customs territory of the EU. AM linked to the rapporteur's AM 8 to Article 21(1).

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

When an application is submitted by an operator enjoying the status of authorised economic operator for customs simplifications, the customs authorities shall not re-examine the common criteria. In respect of all such applications, only the specific criteria relating to the application for authorisation submitted by the economic operator shall be examined.

Justification

This amendment seeks to enhance the status of authorised economic operator by simplifying authorisation applications and procedural audits for authorised economic operators and speeding up processing operations. That status should serve as the reference point for all customs authorisations.

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

 

However, where the customs authorities are unable to comply with those time-limits, they shall inform the applicant of that fact before the expiry of those time-limits, stating the reasons and indicating the further period of time which they consider necessary in order to take a decision.

The period for taking a decision, as laid down in the customs legislation, shall start from the date of acceptance of the application.

 

Where the customs authorities are unable to comply with the time-limit for taking a decision, as laid down in the customs legislation, they shall inform the applicant of that fact before the expiry of the time-limit, stating the reasons and indicating the further period of time which they consider necessary to take a decision. This further period shall not exceed 30 days.

 

Without prejudice to the third subparagraph, the decision-taking customs authority may extend the time-limit for taking a decision, as laid down in the applicable customs legislation, where the applicant requests such an extension to carry out adjustments in order to ensure the fulfilment of the conditions and criteria. Those adjustments and the further period of time necessary to carry them out shall be communicated to the decision-taking customs authority, which shall decide on the extension.

Justification

In order to lay down the important article on the time-limits to take a decision in the UCC itself and to ensure the legal coherence of the customs legislation by not splitting up the legislation by laying it down in different acts, the provisions on the time-limits to take a decision are all laid down in this article. Article 24(2) UCC and Article 124-2-08 of the MCCIP (Modernised Customs Code Implementing Provisions) are combined for these reasons.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 4 - subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In certain cases the first subparagraph shall not apply.

The first subparagraph shall not apply in the following cases:

 

(a) where it is not possible to grant the request for a decision, including the assignment of an Economic Operators Registration and Identification number (EORI number);

 

(b) in the case of a decision referred to in Article 32(1);

 

(c) in case of refusal to grant the benefit of a tariff quota where the specified tariff quota volume has been reached, as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 49(4);

 

(d) where the nature or the level of the threat to the security and safety of the Union and its residents, to human, animal or plant health, to the environment or to consumers so requires;

 

(e) where the decision aims to secure the implementation of another decision to which this paragraph applies, without prejudice to the law of the Member State concerned;

 

(f) where the risk analysis is carried out on the basis of the entry summary declaration or the customs declaration replacing it;

 

(g) where to do so would prejudice investigations initiated for the purpose of combating fraud;

 

(h) for decisions by the Commission on whether repayment or remission is justified.

Justification

The exceptions to the right to be heard in Article 124-1-03 of the MCCIP are moved to the UCC. References to Articles in the UCC and MCCIP have been updated where possible. Par. 4(h) refers to Article 333-26(2) MCCIP.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The holder of the decision shall comply with the obligations resulting from it.

Justification

Because Article 124-2-11 MCCIP contains essential elements, in particular obligations of the holder of the decision, it is appropriate to include these provisions in the UCC.

Amendment  33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The holder of the decision shall inform the decision-taking customs authority without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken, which may influence its continuation or content.

Justification

Because Article 124-2-11 MCCIP contains essential elements, in particular obligations of the holder of the decision, it is appropriate to include these provisions in the UCC.

Amendment  34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 - paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. In certain cases the customs authorities shall carry out the following:

8. The customs authorities shall monitor compliance with the obligations resulting from the decision and re-assess or suspend a decision in the cases specified by customs legislation.

(a) monitor compliance with a decision;

 

(b) re-assess a decision;

 

(c) suspend a decision which is not to be annulled, revoked or amended.

 

Justification

‘In certain cases’ has been removed.

Amendment  35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. The Commission may adopt decisions, other than those referred to in Article 32(8), requesting Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision referred to in Article 24, to ensure the uniform application of the customs legislation.

9. The Commission may adopt decisions, other than those referred to in Article 32(8), requesting one or more Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision referred to in Article 24, to ensure the uniform application of the customs legislation.

Justification

Delegated acts are of general application, and in the UCC recast Articles 24(9) and 32(8) simply refer to "Member States" and not to "one or more Member States". Therefore, if it is decided to keep the implementing acts procedure in Article 26 and in Article 34, the above AM would better clarify the issue. This AM is linked to the procedure referred in Article 26.

Amendment  36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Delegation of power

deleted

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

 

(a) the rules on the procedure for taking the decisions referred to in Article 24;

 

(b) the cases where the applicant is given no opportunity to express his point of view in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 24(4);

 

(c) the rules for monitoring, re-assessing and suspending decisions in accordance with Article 24(8).

 

Justification

These are essential aspects of the Union Customs Code and should be defined in the basic act and not be subject to delegated acts.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 - paragraphs 1 - 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The customs authorities shall, upon application, take decisions relating to binding tariff information (BTI decisions), or decisions relating to binding origin information (BOI decisions).

(1) The customs authorities shall, upon application, take decisions relating to binding tariff information (BTI decisions), decisions relating to binding origin information (BOI decisions) and decisions on binding information on the customs value of goods (‘BVI’ decisions).

Such an application  shall not be accepted  in any of the following circumstances:

Such an application  shall not be accepted  in any of the following circumstances:

(a) where the application is made, or has already been made, at the same or another customs office, by or on behalf of the holder of a decision in respect of the same goods and, for BOI decisions, under the same circumstances determining the acquisition of origin;

(a) where the application is made, or has already been made, at the same or another customs office, by or on behalf of the holder of a decision in respect of the same goods and, for BOI decisions, under the same circumstances determining the acquisition of origin;

(b) where the application does not relate to any intended use of the BTI or BOI decision or any intended use of a customs procedure.

(b) where the application does not relate to any intended use of the BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision or any intended use of a customs procedure.

(2) BTI or BOI decisions shall be binding only in respect of the tariff classification or determination of the origin of goods.

(2) BTI, ‘BVI’ or BOI decisions shall be binding only in respect of the tariff classification, determination of the origin or customs value of goods.

Those decisions shall be binding on the customs authorities, as against the holder of the decision, only in respect of goods for which customs formalities are completed after the date on which the decision takes effect.

Those decisions shall be binding on the customs authorities, as against the holder of the decision, only in respect of goods for which customs formalities are completed after the date on which the decision takes effect.

The decisions shall be binding on the holder of the decision, as against the customs authorities, only with effect from the date on which he receives, or is deemed to have received, notification of the decision.

The decisions shall be binding on the holder of the decision, as against the customs authorities, only with effect from the date on which he receives, or is deemed to have received, notification of the decision.

(3) BTI or BOI decisions shall be valid for a period of three years from the date on which the decision takes effect.

(3) BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decisions shall be valid for a period of three years from the date on which the decision takes effect.

A BTI or BOI decision shall cease to be valid in certain cases before the end of that period.

A BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision shall cease to be valid in certain cases before the end of that period.

In such cases the BTI or BOI decision may still be used in respect of binding contracts based upon the decision and concluded before it ceases to be valid.

In such cases the BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision may still be used in respect of binding contracts based upon the decision and concluded before it ceases to be valid.

(4) For the application of a BTI or BOI decision in the context of a particular customs procedure, the holder of the decision shall  be able to prove that:

(4) For the application of a BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision in the context of a particular customs procedure, the holder of the decision shall  be able to prove that:

(a) in the case of a BTI decision, the goods declared correspond in every respect to those described in the decision;

a) in the case of a BTI decision, the goods declared correspond in every respect to those described in the decision;

(b) in the case of a BOI decision, the goods in question and the circumstances determining the acquisition of origin correspond in every respect to the goods and the circumstances described in the decision.

b) in the case of a BOI decision, the goods in question and the circumstances determining the acquisition of origin correspond in every respect to the goods and the circumstances described in the decision.

 

(c) in the case of a ‘BVI’ decision, the goods in question and the circumstances determining the communication of customs value shall correspond in every respect to the goods and the circumstances described in the decision.

(5) By way of derogation from Article 24(6) and Article 28, BTI and BOI decisions shall be annulled where they are based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the applicants.

(5) By way of derogation from Article 24(6) and Article 28, BTI, BOI and ‘BVI’ decisions shall be annulled where they are based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the applicants.

(6) BTI and BOI decisions shall be revoked in accordance with Article 24(6) and Article 29.

(6) BTI, BOI and ‘BVI’ decisions shall be revoked in accordance with Article 24(6) and Article 29.

They may not be amended.

They may not be amended.

(7) The Commission may notify the Member States of the following:

(7) The Commission may notify the Member States of the following:

(a) that the taking of BTI and BOI decisions, for goods whose uniform tariff classification or determination of origin is not ensured, is suspended;

(a) that the taking of BTI, BOI and ‘BVI’ decisions, for goods whose uniform tariff classification, determination of origin or conditions for the customs value communicated are not ensured, is suspended;

(b) that the suspension referred to under point (a) is withdrawn.

(b) that the suspension referred to under point (a) is withdrawn.

(8) The Commission may adopt decisions requesting Member States to revoke BTI or BOI decisions, to ensure a uniform tariff classification or determination of the origin of goods.

(8) The Commission may adopt decisions requesting one or more Member States to revoke BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decisions, to ensure a uniform tariff classification, determination of the origin of goods or application of the customs value.

Justification

Die Ermittlung des Zollwertes führt zu unterschiedlichen Auffassungen, welche Gebühren in den Zollwert einfließen müssen. Selbst in einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten gibt es bei den Zollbehörden unterschiedliche Sichtweisen, welche Kosten und Gebühren in den Zollwert gehören. In Kapitel 3 „Zollwert der Waren“ sind dem Zollwert die Artikel 61-64 gewidmet. Die Bestimmungen hier sind bereits sehr speziell. Es gab auch Fälle, dass Wirtschaftsbeteiligte, die in mehreren Mitgliedsstaaten tätig sind, unterschiedlichen Entscheidungen der jeweiligen Zollverwaltung ausgesetzt waren. Dies führte zu aufwendigen und kostspieligen Rechtsstreitigkeiten zur Klärung, welche Kosten in den Zollwert einzubeziehen sind. Eine verbindliche Zollwertauskunft führt zu einer einheitlichen Berechungspraxis in allen Mitgliedsstaaten und gibt Rechtssicherheit für Verwaltung und Wirtschaftsbeteiligte. Diese Voraussetzungen, unter denen eine Zollwertauskunft beantragt werden kann, sollten durch die Kommission eng definiert werden.

Amendment  38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 - point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the cases in which a BTI or BOI decision ceases to be valid in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(3);

(a) the cases in which a BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision ceases to be valid in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(3);

Justification

Die Ermittlung des Zollwertes führt zu unterschiedlichen Auffassungen, welche Gebühren in den Zollwert einfließen müssen. Selbst in einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten gibt es bei den Zollbehörden unterschiedliche Sichtweisen, welche Kosten und Gebühren in den Zollwert gehören. In Kapitel 3 „Zollwert der Waren“ sind dem Zollwert die Artikel 61-64 gewidmet. Die Bestimmungen hier sind bereits sehr speziell. Es gab auch Fälle, dass Wirtschaftsbeteiligte, die in mehreren Mitgliedsstaaten tätig sind, unterschiedlichen Entscheidungen der jeweiligen Zollverwaltung ausgesetzt waren. Dies führte zu aufwendigen und kostspieligen Rechtsstreitigkeiten zur Klärung, welche Kosten in den Zollwert einzubeziehen sind. Eine verbindliche Zollwertauskunft führt zu einer einheitlichen Berechungspraxis in allen Mitgliedsstaaten und gibt Rechtssicherheit für Verwaltung und Wirtschaftsbeteiligte. Diese Voraussetzungen, unter denen eine Zollwertauskunft beantragt werden kann, sollten durch die Kommission eng definiert werden.

Amendment  39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the rules for using a BTI or BOI decision after it ceases to be valid in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(3);

(b) the rules for using a BTI, BOI or ‘BVI’ decision after it ceases to be valid in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(3);

Justification

Die Ermittlung des Zollwertes führt zu unterschiedlichen Auffassungen, welche Gebühren in den Zollwert einfließen müssen. Selbst in einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten gibt es bei den Zollbehörden unterschiedliche Sichtweisen, welche Kosten und Gebühren in den Zollwert gehören. In Kapitel 3 „Zollwert der Waren“ sind dem Zollwert die Artikel 61-64 gewidmet. Die Bestimmungen hier sind bereits sehr speziell. Es gab auch Fälle, dass Wirtschaftsbeteiligte, die in mehreren Mitgliedsstaaten tätig sind, unterschiedlichen Entscheidungen der jeweiligen Zollverwaltung ausgesetzt waren. Dies führte zu aufwendigen und kostspieligen Rechtsstreitigkeiten zur Klärung, welche Kosten in den Zollwert einzubeziehen sind. Eine verbindliche Zollwertauskunft führt zu einer einheitlichen Berechungspraxis in allen Mitgliedsstaaten und gibt Rechtssicherheit für Verwaltung und Wirtschaftsbeteiligte. Diese Voraussetzungen, unter denen eine Zollwertauskunft beantragt werden kann, sollten durch die Kommission eng definiert werden.

Amendment  40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Customs controls shall be performed within a common risk management framework, based upon the exchange of risk information and analysis between customs administrations and establishing, common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas.

3. Customs controls shall be performed within a common risk management framework, based upon the exchange of risk information and analysis between customs administrations and establishing, common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas.

 

As a general rule, in order to ensure that the grant of Authorised Economic Operator status results in fewer physical and documented-based controls related to security and safety as referred to in point (a) of Article 21(2), a lower risk score shall be incorporated into the customs risk management systems.

Justification

The new EU Guidelines on authorised economic operators (AEOs) clarify that the benefit of an AEO include “fewer controls at the point of importation or exportation and can be taken into account for post clearance controls as well”. The rapporteur takes the view that this fundamental principle needs to be clearly articulated in the basic act and not left to Guidelines and included within Article 21 and Article 39 of the UCC recast. This AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 9 to Article 21(2)b and AM 14 to Article 23.

Amendment  41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 43

deleted

Delegation of power

 

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying the place where formalities and controls are to be carried out on cabin and hold baggage in accordance with Article 42.

 

Justification

Location of the baggage check is not complementing the basic regulation, but is rather a matter of implementing it. There need to be uniform conditions for the location of the control. Article 43 should be deleted and Article 44 should be extended to implementing powers also for the location of baggage checks.

Amendment  42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, measures to ensure uniform application of the customs controls, including the exchange of risk information and analysis, common risk criteria and standards, the control measures and the priority control areas.

1. The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, measures to ensure uniform application of the customs controls, including the exchange of risk information and analysis, common risk criteria and standards, the control measures and the priority control areas. Those measures shall not affect the general rule referred to in Article 39(3).

Justification

This AM is linked to the rapporteur's AMs to Article 21(2)a and Article 39(3). As a general principle, to fully deliver the benefit of the Authorised Economic Operator's status from fewer physical and documented-based controls related to security and safety as referred to in Article 21(2)a, a lower risk score shall be incorporated into the customs risk management systems.

Amendment  43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, measures specifying the place where formalities and controls are to be carried out on cabin and hold baggage in accordance with Article 42.

Justification

Location of the baggage check is not complementing the basic regulation, but is rather a matter of implementing it. There need to be uniform conditions for the location of the control. Article 43 should be deleted and Article 44 should be extended to implementing powers also for the location of baggage checks.

Amendment  44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 53 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Goods the production of which involved more than one country or territory shall be deemed to originate in the country or territory where they underwent their last substantial transformation.

2. Goods the production of which involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last, substantial, economically-justified processing or working, in an undertaking equipped for that purpose, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture.

Justification

The basis for deciding on a particular origin for goods was for decades the ‘last substantial processing or working’ of a product in a particular country. Criteria for this decision are either a change in the tariff heading or the value added. This approach has always been successful in customs matters and is easy to apply in practice. It should therefore be maintained.

Amendment  45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 54 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where proof of origin of goods is provided pursuant to customs legislation or other Union legislation governing specific fields, the customs authorities may, in the event of reasonable doubt, require any additional evidence needed in order to ensure that the indication of origin does comply with the rules laid down by the relevant Union legislation.

2. Where proof of origin of goods is provided pursuant to customs legislation or other Union legislation governing specific fields, the customs authorities may, in the event of reasonable doubt, require any additional evidence needed in order to ensure that the indication of origin does comply with the rules laid down by the relevant Union legislation.

 

Where evidence of the origin of goods is provided in the Union in the form of a certificate of origin issued in a third country, that certificate shall fulfil the following conditions:

 

(a) it shall be made out by a reliable authority or agency authorised for that purpose by the country of issue;

 

(b) it shall contain all the particulars necessary for identifying the goods to which it relates;

 

(c) it shall certify unambiguously that the goods to which it relates originate in a specific country.

Justification

The AM has the objective to integrate in the basic act the main principles that serve to rule/guide the Commission in its acts (delegated acts). In the rapporteur's opinion, the criterion governing the application of rules of origin is an essential element to make it explicit in the basic act. The proposal is taken from MCCIP. AM linked to the rapporteur's AM 21 to Article 55.

Amendment  46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 - introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243,

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, supplementing the requirements on the proof of origin referred to in Article 54.

Justification

The rules on non-preferential origin are of high importance for customs matters as well as trade-political and economic aspects. Therefore, the UCC should give clear guidelines by rules on how to define the origin allowing proper results and easy handling. An empowerment should be given for the proof of origin only.

Amendment  47

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In the case of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union in respect of certain countries or territories outside the customs territory of the Union or groups of such countries or territories, other than those referred to in paragraph 5, the Commission shall adopt measures laying down the rules on preferential origin.

3. In the case of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union in respect of certain countries or territories outside the customs territory of the Union or groups of such countries or territories, other than those referred to in paragraph 5, the Commission shall adopt measures laying down the rules on preferential origin. The rules defining the preferential origin of goods shall be based on the criterion of "whole obtention" or sufficient processing operation.

Justification

The AM has the objective to integrate in the basic act the main principles that serve to rule/guide the Commission in its acts (delegated acts). In the rapporteur's opinion, the criterion governing the application of the preferential origin of goods is an essential element to make it explicit in the basic act. The proposal is taken from Articles 72 and 98(1) of EC Regulation 2454/93. This AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 23 to Article 57.

Amendment  48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 57

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, supplementing

Justification

This AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 22 to Article 56.

Amendment  49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 59

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may adopt measures to determine the origin of goods.

The Commission may adopt measures to determine the origin and traceability of goods.

Justification

It is essential for consumer protection and for EU industry for the Commission to be able to adopt measures on traceability of the origin of products transiting EU customs from third countries, as a means of prevention and of combating counterfeiting.

Amendment  50

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The primary basis for the customs value of 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 Union, adjusted, where necessary.

1. The primary basis for the customs value of 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 Union, adjusted, where necessary, in accordance with paragraph 4.

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  51

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 3 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made;

(c) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with paragraph 4;

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  52

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Special rules shall apply to determine the customs value of goods based on the transaction value.

4. In determining the transaction value under paragraphs 1 and 2, the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods shall be increased by:

 

(a) the following, to the extent that they are incurred by the buyer but are not included in the price actually paid or payable for the goods:

 

(i) commissions and brokerage, except buying commissions,

 

(ii) the cost of containers which are treated as being one, for customs purposes, with the goods in question,

 

(iii) the cost of packing, whether for labour or materials;

 

(iv) engineering, development, artwork, design work, and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the Union and necessary for the production of the imported goods;

 

(b) royalties and licence fees related to the goods being valued that the buyer must pay, either directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of the goods being valued, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable;

 

(c) the value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the imported goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the seller;

 

(d) the cost of transport and insurance of the imported goods, and

 

(e) loading and handling charges associated with the transport of the imported goods to the place of introduction into the customs territory of the Union.

 

4.a. In the case of successive sales before valuation, where a price is declared which relates to a sale taking place before the last sale on the basis of which the goods were introduced into the customs territory of the Union, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that this sale of goods took place for export to the customs territory in question

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  53

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. Additions to the price actually paid or payable shall be made under this Article only on the basis of objective and quantifiable data.

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4b. No additions shall be made to the price actually paid or payable in determining the customs value except as provided in this Article.

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4c. The customs value may also be determined under the transaction value method, on the basis of a sale which takes place while the goods are subject to any of the special procedures indicated under points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 180.

Justification

This provisions, which is copied from Article 230-02(2) MCCIP, replaces paragraph 4 of the UCC proposal.

Amendment  56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4d. In this Chapter, the term ‘buying commissions’ means fees paid by an importer to his agent for representing him in the purchase of the goods being valued.

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 62 - paragraph 4 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4e. Notwithstanding paragraph 4d:

 

(a) charges for the right to reproduce the imported goods in the Union shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods when determining the customs value; and

 

(b) payments made by the buyer for the right to distribute or resell the imported goods shall not be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods if such payments are not a condition of the sale for export to the Union of the goods.

Justification

Inclusion of Article 32 of the Community Customs Code (COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2913/92), which is currently applicable and which ensures, among others, that Royalties & Licenses Fees paid by the buyer of the imported goods to third party licensors can only be included in the customs value if they are a condition of sale, in line with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement (Article 8) and international practice.

Amendment  58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 83 - paragraph 1 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) they fulfil the criteria laid down in Article 22(a);

(b) they fulfil the criteria laid down in Article 22(a), for as far as relevant to the authorisation;

Amendment  59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 83 - paragraph 1 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) they are regular users of the customs procedures involved or they fulfil the criteria laid down in Article 22(d).

(c) they are regular users of the customs procedures involved or they fulfil those criteria laid down in Article 22(d)that are relevant to the authorisation.

Amendment  60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 83 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where a comprehensive guarantee is to be provided for customs debts and other charges which may be incurred, an economic operator may be authorised to use a comprehensive guarantee with a reduced amount or to have a guarantee waiver provided that he fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 22(b) and (c)

2. An economic operator may be authorised to use a comprehensive guarantee with a reduced amount or to have a guarantee waiver provided that he fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 22(b) and (c)

Justification

Companies with AEO status should be able to hold a single comprehensive guarantee which could be subject to a 100% waiver for all customs procedures.

Amendment  61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 91 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where the customs debt is incurred as the result of an act which, at the time it was committed, was liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings, the three year period laid down in paragraph 1 shall be extended to a period of ten years.

2. Where the customs debt is incurred as the result of an act which, at the time it was committed, was liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings, the three year period laid down in paragraph 1 shall be extended to a period of five years.

Justification

The 10-year period of limitation provided for in Article 91(2) is at odds with Article 45 of the proposal, under which the period for which operators are required to keep documents relating to customs operations is much shorter than 10 years (‘at least three calendar years’). Five years is the period of limitation set in the Convention for the protection of the Communities' financial interests adopted in 1995.

Amendment  62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 91 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where an appeal is lodged under Article 37, the periods laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be suspended, for the duration of the appeal proceedings, from the date on which the appeal is lodged.

3. Periods laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be suspended for the time period referred to in Article 24(4). Where an appeal is lodged under Article 37, the periods laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be suspended, for the duration of the appeal proceedings, from the date on which the appeal is lodged.

Justification

Implementation of the Right to Be Heard (RBH) procedure and for a time equal to the time needed for RBH proceedings. The need for the introduction of this adjustment is the protection of financial interests of both the traditional own resources and the national resources when their recovery is at stake This could occur in cases where the Right to Be Heard procedure has to be implemented very close (in terms of time) to the expiry of the periods where the customs debt can be notified, according to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 91 of UCC.

Amendment  63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 103 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In certain cases where the competent authority considers that repayment or remission should be granted, that authority shall transmit the case to the Commission for decision.

2. Where the customs authorities consider that repayment or remission should be granted, that authority shall transmit the case to the Commission in the following cases :

 

(a) where the customs authorities consider that a special situation is either exclusively the result of the Commission failing in its obligations or the special situation results from both a failure of the customs authorities and of the Commission;

 

(b) where the customs authorities consider that the Commission has committed an error within the meaning of paragraph 1(c); and

 

(c) where the circumstances of the case are related to the findings of a Union investigation carried out under Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters1, or under any other Union legislation or any agreement concluded by the Union with countries or groups of countries in which provision is made for carrying out such Union investigations;

 

(d) where the amount for which the person concerned may be liable in respect of one or more import or export operations, in consequence of an error or special circumstances, amounts to EUR 500 000 or more.

 

________

 

1 OJ L 82, 22.3.1997, p. 1.

Justification

Which cases should be submitted to the Commission is an essential element of the customs legislation. For this reason, we suggest moving Article 332-23 MCCIP to these two paragraphs.

Amendment  64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 103 - paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. The cases referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be transmitted in either of the following situations:

 

(a) when the Commission has already adopted a decision under the procedure provided for in this Section on a case involving comparable issues of fact and of law;

 

(b) when the Commission is already considering a case involving comparable issues of fact and of law;

Justification

Which cases should be submitted to the Commission is an essential element of the customs legislation. For this reason, we suggest moving Article 332-23 MCCIP to these two paragraphs.

Amendment  65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 103 - paragraph 6 - subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Where the competent authority has granted repayment or remission in error, the original customs debt shall be reinstated insofar as it is not time-barred under Article 91.

6. Where the customs authorities have granted repayment or remission in error, the original customs debt shall be established in accordance with Article 91.

Justification

‘Competent authority’ is changed into ‘customs authorities’. See under par. 1(c)

Amendment  66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 114 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa) for goods imported by an authorised economic operator;

Justification

There are no plans for rules on exemptions from the summary declaration, which would represent a simplification for authorised economic operators. Rules should be set out in the proposal.

Amendment  67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 114 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The entry summary declaration shall be lodged by the person responsible at the competent customs office within a specific time-limit, before the goods are brought into the customs territory of the Union.

3. The entry summary declaration shall be lodged by the person who brings the goods into the customs territory of the Union or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods into that territory.

Justification

The person who is obliged to lodge the entry summary declaration is an essential element of the customs legislation. It should be included in the UCC, in the same way as it was included in the MCC. We therefore suggest including Article 88(2) and (3) MCC here.

Amendment  68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 114 - paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. Notwithstanding the obligations of the person referred to in paragraph 3, the entry summary declaration may be lodged instead by one of the following persons:

 

(a) the importer or consignee or other person in whose name or on whose behalf the person referred to in paragraph 3 acts;

 

(b) any person who is able to present the goods in question or to have them presented to the competent customs authority.

Justification

The person who is obliged to lodge the entry summary declaration is an essential element of the customs legislation. It should be included in the UCC, in the same way as it was included in the MCC. We therefore suggest including Article 88(2) and (3) MCC here.

Amendment  69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 115 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 115a

 

Lodging and the responsible person

 

The entry summary declaration shall be lodged using electronic data processing techniques and shall be governed by means of the multiple filing system as recommended by the World Customs Organisation (WCO) Safe Framework of Standards. That system shall be based on the principle that information needs to be collected from the person who has it available and who holds the appropriate right to submit it.

Justification

Lodging an entry summary declaration for a good is a precondition for this to be imported into the EU. It is, therefore, an essential aspect to be ruled in the basic act and not simply through delegated acts. A multiple filing system as recommended by the WCO Safe Framework of Standards has proven to be the preferred way to obtain quality information for risk assessment and been implemented successfully in many part of the world. This system is based on the principle that information needs to be collected from the person who has it available and holds the appropriate right to submit it.

Amendment  70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 116 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

However, no such amendment shall be possible where any of the following events have occurred:

 

(a) the customs authorities have informed the person who lodged the entry summary declaration that they intend to examine the goods;

 

(b) the customs authorities have established that the particulars in question are incorrect; or

 

(c) the customs authorities have allowed the removal of the goods from the place where they were presented.

Justification

We propose to keep Article 89(1) MCC unchanged and include the cases where no amendment of the entry summary declaration is possible in the UCC.

Amendment  71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 117 - paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The competent customs office may waive the lodging of an entry summary declaration in respect of goods for which, prior to the expiry of the time-limit for lodging that declaration, a declaration for temporary storage is lodged. That declaration for temporary storage shall contain at least the particulars necessary for the entry summary declaration. Until such time as the goods declared are presented to customs in accordance with Article 124, the declaration for temporary storage shall have the status of an entry summary declaration.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 118 – paragraph 1 - introductory part and point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

In the event that the World Customs Organisation Framework of Standards is amended, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, amending the rules on the procedure for lodging an entry summary declaration, as referred to in Article 115a.

(a) the rules on the procedure for lodging an entry summary declaration;

 

Justification

Lodging an entry summary declaration for a good is a precondition for this to be imported into the EU. It is, therefore, an essential aspect to be ruled in the basic act and not simply through delegated acts.

Amendment  73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 118 - paragraph 1 a (new) - introductory part (new) and point a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

 

(a) the cases, other than those referred to in Article 114(2), in which the requirement for an entry summary declaration may be waived or adapted and the conditions under which it may be so waived or adapted;

Justification

It cannot be assumed that the term ‘rules on the procedure for lodging an entry summary declaration’ in paragraph (a) of this Article includes any empowerment for establishment of additional waivers or adaptation of the requirement for an entry summary declaration (ENS).

Amendment  74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 124 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The person presenting the goods shall make a reference to the entry summary declaration or customs declaration which has been lodged in respect of the goods, except where the lodging of such declaration is not required.

3. The person presenting the goods shall make a reference to the entry summary declaration or customs declaration or declaration for temporary storage which has been lodged in respect of the goods, except where the lodging of an entry summary declaration is not required.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 124 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Where non-Union goods presented to customs are not covered by an entry summary declaration, and except where the lodging of such declaration is not required, the holder of the goods shall lodge such a declaration or a customs declaration replacing it immediately.

4. Where non-Union goods presented to customs are not covered by an entry summary declaration, and except where the lodging of such declaration is not required, one of the persons referred to in Article 114 shall immediately lodge an entry summary declaration or a customs declaration or a declaration on temporary storage replacing the entry summary declaration.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 125 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 125a

 

Temporary storage of goods

 

Except where non-Union goods are placed under a customs procedure, they shall be held in temporary storage from the moment of their presentation to customs in the following cases:

 

(a) where goods brought into the customs territory of the Union are presented to customs immediately upon their arrival in accordance with Article 124;

 

(b) where goods are presented to the customs office of destination in the customs territory of the Union in accordance with the rules governing the transit procedure;

 

(c) where goods are brought from a free zone into another part of the customs territory of the Union.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 125 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 125b

 

Declaration for temporary storage

 

1. Non-Union goods presented to customs shall be covered by a declaration for temporary storage containing all the particulars necessary for the application of the provisions governing temporary storage.

 

2. The declaration for temporary storage shall be lodged by one of the persons referred to in Article 124(1) or (2) at the latest at the time of the presentation of the goods to customs.

 

3. The declaration for temporary storage shall include a reference to any entry summary declaration lodged for the goods presented to customs, except where they have already been in temporary storage or have been placed under a customs procedure and have not left the customs territory of the Union.

 

4. The declaration for temporary storage may also take one of the following forms:

 

(a) a reference to any entry summary declaration lodged for the goods concerned, supplemented by the particulars of a declaration for temporary storage;

 

(b) a manifest or another transport document, provided that it contains the particulars of a declaration for temporary storage, including a reference to any entry summary declaration for the goods concerned;

 

(c) the transit declaration, where non-Union goods are moved under a transit procedure are presented to customs at an office of destination within the customs territory of the Union.

 

5. Customs authorities may accept that commercial, port or transport information systems are used to lodge a declaration for temporary storage provided that they contain the necessary particulars for such declaration and those particulars are available in accordance with paragraph 2.

 

6. Articles 158 to 163 shall apply to the verification of the declaration for temporary storage.

 

7. The declaration for temporary storage may also be used for the purpose of:

 

(a) the notification of arrival referred to in Article 119;

 

(b) the presentation of the goods to customs referred to in Article 124, insofar as it fulfils the conditions laid down in those provisions.

 

8. A declaration for temporary storage shall not be required where, at the latest at the time of their presentation to customs, their customs status as Union goods is determined in accordance with Articles 130 to 133.

 

9. The declaration for temporary storage shall be kept by the customs authorities for the purpose of verifying that the goods to which it relates are subsequently placed under a customs procedure in accordance with Article 126.

Amendment  78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 125 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 125c

 

Amendment and invalidation of a declaration for temporary storage

 

1. The declarant may, upon application, be authorised to amend one or more particulars of the declaration for temporary storage after it has been lodged.

 

No amendment shall be possible after any of the following :

 

(a) the customs authorities have informed the person who lodged the declaration that they intend to examine the goods ;

 

(b) the customs authorities have established that particulars of the declaration are incorrect; ;

 

(c) the goods have been presented to customs.

 

2. Where the goods for which a declaration for temporary storage has been lodged are not presented to customs, the customs authorities shall invalidate that declaration:

 

(a) upon application by the declarant; and

 

(b) within a specific time-limit after the declaration has been lodged.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 125 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 125d

 

Conditions and responsibilities for the temporary storage of goods

 

1. Goods in temporary storage shall be stored only in temporary storage facilities in accordance with Article 125e or, where justified, in other places designated or approved by the customs authorities.

 

2. Without prejudice to Article 120(2), goods in temporary storage shall be subject only to those forms of handling that are designed to ensure their preservation in an unaltered state, without modifying their appearance or technical characteristics.

 

3. The person presenting the goods in accordance with Article 124(1) and (2) shall be responsible for the following:

 

(a) ensuring that goods in temporary storage are not removed from customs supervision;

 

(b) fulfilling the obligations arising from the storage of goods in temporary storage.

 

The holder of the authorisation referred to in Article 125e shall be responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 for goods stored in its temporary storage facilities.

 

4. Where, for any reason, goods cannot be maintained in temporary storage, the customs authorities shall without delay take all measures necessary to regularise the situation of the goods in accordance with Articles 167, 168 and 169.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 125 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 125e

 

Authorisation for the operation of temporary storage facilities

 

1. An authorisation from the customs authorities shall be required for the operation of temporary storage facilities. Such authorisation shall not be required where the operator of the temporary storage facility is the customs authority itself.

 

The conditions under which the operation of temporary storage facilities is permitted shall be set out in the authorisation.

 

2. Except where otherwise provided, the authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only to persons who satisfy the following conditions :

 

(a) they are established in the customs territory of the Union;

 

(b) they provide the necessary assurance of the proper conduct of the operations;

 

(c) they provide a guarantee in accordance with Article 77.

 

An authorised economic operator authorised to use customs simplifications shall be deemed to fulfil the condition laid down in point (b) of the first subparagraph, insofar as the operation of temporary storage facilities was taken into account when granting that authorisation.

 

3. The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only where the customs authorities are able to exercise customs supervision without having to introduce administrative arrangements disproportionate to the economic needs involved.

 

4. The holder of the authorisation shall keep appropriate records in a form approved by the customs authorities.

 

The records shall contain information and the particulars which enable the customs authorities to supervise the operation of the temporary storage facilities, in particular with regard to identification of the goods stored, their customs status and their movements.

 

An authorised economic operator authorised to use customs simplifications shall be deemed to comply with the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph insofar as his records are appropriate for the purpose of temporary storage.

 

5. The customs authorities may authorise the holder of the authorisation to move goods in temporary storage between different temporary storage facilities under the condition that such movements would not increase the risk of fraud.

 

Where goods in temporary storage are moved to a temporary storage facility covered by another authorisation, the holder of that authorisation shall lodge a new declaration for temporary storage in accordance with Article 125b and become responsible for the temporary storage of the goods concerned in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 125d(3).

 

The customs authorities may, where an economic need exists and customs supervision will not be adversely affected, authorise the storage of Union goods in a temporary storage facility. Those goods shall not be regarded as goods in temporary storage.

 

6. The holder of the authorisation shall comply with his obligations and the customs authorities shall monitor that compliance.

 

7. The holder of the authorisation shall notify the customs authorities of all factors arising after the authorisation was granted which may influence its continuation or content.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  81

Proposal for a regulation

Title 4 - Chapter 2 - Section 3 - title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Formalities after presentation

Temporary storage of goods

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 126 - title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Obligation to place non-Union goods under a customs procedure

Obligation to place goods in temporary storage under a customs procedure

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 126 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Without prejudice to Articles 167,168 and 169 non-Union goods presented to customs shall be placed under a customs procedure.

1. Non-Union goods in temporary storage shall be placed under a customs procedure or re-exported within a specific time-limit.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  84

Proposal for a regulation

Article 126 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Except as otherwise provided, the declarant shall be free to choose the customs procedure under which he wishes to place the goods, under the conditions for that procedure, irrespective of their nature or quantity, or their country of origin, consignment or destination.

2. Except where otherwise provided, the declarant shall be free to choose the customs procedure under which he wishes to place the goods, under the conditions for that procedure, irrespective of their nature or quantity, or their country of origin, consignment or destination.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  85

Proposal for a regulation

Article 126 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 126a

 

Goods deemed to be placed in temporary storage

 

1. Except where goods are immediately placed under a customs procedure for which a customs declaration has been accepted, or have been placed in a free zone, non-Union goods presented to customs shall be deemed to have been placed under temporary storage, in accordance with Article 203.

 

2. Without prejudice to the obligation laid down in Article 114(3) and the exceptions or waiver provided for by the measures adopted under Article 114(2), where it is found that non-Union goods presented to customs are not covered by an entry summary declaration, the holder of the goods shall lodge such a declaration immediately.

Justification

It is proposed to reintroduce the former Article 98- Reg. 450/2008 (MCC). This article was deleted in the UCC recast, despite goods still being placed into temporary storage by the act of presentation.

Amendment  86

Proposal for a regulation

Article 129 - point ca (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca) the specific time-limit for re-exportation as referred to Article 126(1).

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  87

Proposal for a regulation

Article 134 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. All goods intended to be placed under a customs procedure, except for the free zone and the temporary storage procedures, shall be covered by a customs declaration appropriate for the particular procedure.

1. All goods intended to be placed under a customs procedure, except for the free zone procedure, shall be covered by a customs declaration appropriate for the particular procedure.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  88

Proposal for a regulation

Article 137

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 137

deleted

Conferral of implementing powers

 

The Commission shall adopt measures on the official opening hours referred to in Article 135(2) by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 244(4).

 

Justification

It is proposed that this provision be deleted, in view of the provisions of Article 135(2) regarding the Union’s international obligations in respect of the operating of customs offices (official opening hours, taking into account the nature of the traffic and trade flows) and the principle of proportionality, under which decisions/provisions must be adopted at the most appropriate level (the 27 Member States are better informed regarding local geographical, transport and trade conditions).

Amendment  89

Proposal for a regulation

Article 138 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The customs authorities may authorise a person to lodge, at the customs office responsible for the place where he is established a customs declaration for goods which are presented to customs at another customs office. In such cases, the customs debt shall be deemed to be incurred at the customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged.

1. The customs authorities may authorise an authorised economic operator authorised under points (a) and (b) of Article 21(2) to lodge, at the customs office responsible for the place where he is established a customs declaration for goods which are presented to customs at another customs office. In such cases, the customs debt shall be deemed to be incurred at the customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged or made available.

Amendment  90

Proposal for a regulation

Article 138 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged shall carry out the formalities for the verification of the declaration, and the recovery of the amount of import or export duty corresponding to any customs debt.

2. The customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged or made available shall carry out the formalities for the verification of the declaration, the recovery of the amount of import or export duty corresponding to any customs debt and for granting release of the goods taking into account information received from that office.

Justification

Further to the rapporteur's proposal to go back to the original MCC Article (106), where the supervising customs office would grant or refuse the release of goods, and the presentation customs office would carry only security and safety examination, since centralised clearance is supposed to contribute to the simplification of the procedures, it must be clear that it is possible to both physically present the required documents or offer access (ex. electronically) to those.

Amendment  91

Proposal for a regulation

Article 138 – paragraph 3 - subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The customs office at which the goods are presented shall, without prejudice to its own controls, carry out any examination justifiably requested by the customs office at which the customs declaration has been lodged.

3. The customs office at which the goods are presented shall, without prejudice to its own controls for security and safety purposes, carry out any examination justifiably requested by the customs office at which the customs declaration has been lodged and shall allow release of the goods, taking into account information received from that office.

Justification

As far centralised clearance, the rapporteur proposes an AM going back to the original MCC Article (106), where the supervising customs office would grant or refuse the release of goods, and the presentation customs office would carry only security and safety examination. This will affect Article 138(2) and (3) of the UCC recast. Therefore, this AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 28 to Article 138(2).

Amendment  92

Proposal for a regulation

Article 138 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Those customs offices shall exchange information necessary for the release of the goods. The customs office at which the goods are presented shall allow the release of the goods.

deleted

Justification

As far centralised clearance, the rapporteur proposes an AM going back to the original MCC Article (106), where the supervising customs office would grant or refuse the release of goods, and the presentation customs office would carry only security and safety examination. This will affect Article 138(2) and (3). Therefore, this AM is linked to the rapporteur's AM 29 to Article 138(3) and AM 28 to Article 138(2) of the UCC recast.

Amendment  93

Proposal for a regulation

Article 144 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In certain cases the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration shall be waved.

2. A supplementary declaration shall not be required in the following cases:

 

(a) where goods are placed under a customs warehousing procedure;

 

(b) where goods are placed under a special procedure provided that:

 

(i) two or more authorisations for a special procedure are granted to the same person;

 

(ii) the special procedure referred to in point (i) is discharged by the placement of the goods under the subsequent customs procedure using entry in the declarant's records.

 

(c) where the simplified declaration concerns goods the value and quantity of which is below the statistical threshold;

 

(d) where the simplified declaration already contains all the information needed for the customs procedure concerned;

 

(e) where the simplified declaration is not made by entry in the declarant's records.

Justification

With regard the exceptions from the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration, it is preferable to explicitly define the cases in the BA.

Amendment  94

Proposal for a regulation

Article 145 - point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) the cases where the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration is waived in accordance with Article 144(2).

deleted

Justification

Since the cases for exceptions from the obligation to lodge a supplementary declaration are explicitly defined in the BA, this subparagraph on the relevant delegation of powers should be deleted.

Amendment  95

Proposal for a regulation

Article 146 - paragraph 3 - point ba (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba) persons who lodge a customs declaration in a country whose territory is adjacent to the customs territory of the Union at a border customs office adjacent to this territory, subject to the condition that this country allows a reciprocal benefit to persons established in the customs territory of the Union;

Justification

With regard the exceptions for the declarants to be established in the customs territory, it is preferable to explicitly define the cases in the BA.

Amendment  96

Proposal for a regulation

Article 146 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The requirement to be established in the customs territory of the Union may be waived in cases other than those laid down in paragraph 3.

deleted

Justification

Since the exceptions for the declarants to be established in the customs territory are explicitly defined in the BA, this paragraph for the relevant delegation of powers should be deleted.

Amendment  97

Proposal for a regulation

Article 148 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Customs declarations which comply with the conditions laid down in this Chapter shall be accepted by the customs authorities immediately, provided that the goods to which they refer have been presented to customs.

1. Customs declarations which comply with the conditions laid down in this Chapter shall be accepted by the customs authorities immediately, provided that the goods to which they refer have been presented to customs or, to the satisfaction of the customs authorities, are notified in advance and subsequently made available for customs controls.

 

Where the declaration takes the form of an entry in the declarant’s records and access to those data by the customs authorities, the declaration shall be deemed to have been accepted at the moment at which the goods are entered in the records. The customs authorities may, without prejudice to the declarant's legal obligations or to the application of security and safety controls, waive the obligation for the goods to be presented or to be made available for customs control.

Justification

The Commission's proposal stipulates that goods can be released or otherwise selected for control only after their arrival in the territory of the Union. This would cause considerable delays at the point of entry into the EU. Traders holding an AEO status should be able to get notification for release or control of goods before the goods arrive in the EU.

Amendment  98

Proposal for a regulation

Article 154 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The customs authorities may, upon application, authorise a person to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant’s records, provided that the customs authorities have access to those data in the declarant’s electronic system.

1. The customs authorities may, upon application, authorise a person to lodge a customs declaration in the form of an entry in the declarant’s records, provided that the customs authorities have access to those data in the declarant’s electronic system in the context of post-release controls under Article 41.

Justification

Specific rules for authorising the release of goods by means of an entry in company documents and for implementation should be set down in the Regulation. This also includes access on the part of customs authorities to companies’ electronic data processing systems. As part of the special procedures, the customs authorities will be kept informed of import procedures by the holder of the authorisation (general information). Verification of the data will take place by means of post-release controls (audits). Customs authorities do not need to have access to companies’ operating systems.

Amendment  99

Proposal for a regulation

Article 154 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The customs authorities may, upon application, waive the obligation for the goods to be presented.

2. The customs authorities may, upon application, waive the obligation for the goods to be presented, in accordance with Article 124(1). This waiver shall be recorded in the declarant's records in accordance with Article 154(1).

Justification

Specific rules for authorising the release of goods by means of an entry in company documents and for implementation should be set down in the Regulation. This also includes access on the part of customs authorities to companies’ electronic data processing systems. As part of the special procedures, the customs authorities will be kept informed of import procedures by the holder of the authorisation (general information). Verification of the data will take place by means of post-release controls (audits). Customs authorities do not need to have access to companies’ operating systems.

Amendment  100

Proposal for a regulation

Article 154 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The customs declaration shall be deemed to have been accepted at the moment at which the goods are entered in the records.

3. The customs declaration shall be deemed to have been accepted and the goods to have been released at the moment at which the goods are entered in the records.

Amendment  101

Proposal for a regulation

Article 154 - paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. The holder of the authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall fulfil the criteria set out in Article 22(a) to (d).

Justification

This amendment seeks to ensure that the criteria for authorised economic operators are taken into account as a minimum requirement, with a view to making the system more reliable.

Amendment  102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 180 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) storage, which shall comprise temporary storage, customs warehousing and free zones;

(b) storage, which shall comprise customs warehousing and free zones;

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 181 - paragraph 1 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the operation of storage facilities for the temporary storage or customs warehousing of goods, except where the storage facility operator is the customs authority itself.

(b) the operation of storage facilities for the customs warehousing of goods, except where the storage facility operator is the customs authority itself.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment                104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 181 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

An authorised economic operator for customs simplifications shall be deemed to fulfil the condition laid down in point (b), insofar as the activity pertaining to the special procedure concerned was taken into account when granting that authorisation.

Without prejudice to the additional conditions governing the procedures in question and provided that there has been no subsequent change of the data already submitted as a part of the process for the granting of the status of the Authorised Economic Operator, the condition set out in point (b) shall be deemed to have been fulfilled by authorised economic operators and shall require no further controls.

Justification

The holding of the status of authorised economic operator (AEO) should allow compliant economic operators to be able to take maximum advantage of the simplification: once AEO criteria are fulfilled, any criteria for the use of simplifications related to the conduct of operations should not be re-examined. The recast of the UCC has now introduced a relationship between the criteria for authorisation to use a special procedure and authorised economic operator status. This devalues AEO status and results in increased costs, especially for SMEs.

Amendment  105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 196 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods under the Union transit procedure and regarding the end of that procedure.

4. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods under the Union transit procedure and regarding the end of that procedure, including the use of a manifest transmitted by data exchange systems as a transit declaration by any airline or shipping line that operates a significant number of flights or voyages between Member States.

Justification

The use of electronic manifests fully meets the requirements both for electronic declaration and for presentation. This is in line with the concept of declaration by entry in the records which was central in the modernisation of custom law in Europe.

Amendment  106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 198 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the rules for the granting of the authorisation referred to in Article 196(4);

(b) the rules for granting of the authorisation to act as an authorised consignor or an authorised consignee as well as to use special seals and rules for simplified transit procedures for movements by air and sea referred to in Article 196(4).

Justification

-          Subparagraph b: we are of the opinion that the simplified transit procedures for movement by air and sea should be retained in the UCC;

-          Subparagraph c: Article 196(5) can be deleted, because the obligations of the holder of the authorisation as well as the obligation for Customs to ensure compliance are regulated in or at least can be derived from Title 1, Chapter 1, e.g. Article 5(3) and Article 5(24). Subparagraph (c) is therefore superfluous and can be deleted.

Amendment  107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 199 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The customs authorities may, where an economic need exists and customs supervision will not be adversely affected, authorise the storage of Union goods in a storage facility for temporary storage or customs warehousing. Those goods shall not be regarded as being under the temporary storage or customs warehousing procedure.

3. The customs authorities may, where an economic need exists and customs supervision will not be adversely affected, authorise the storage of Union goods in a storage facility for customs warehousing. Those goods shall not be regarded as being under the customs warehousing procedure.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 200 - paragraph 1 - point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) ensuring that goods under the temporary storage or customs warehousing procedures are not removed from customs supervision;

(a) ensuring that goods under customs warehousing procedures are not removed from customs supervision;

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 200 - paragraph 1 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) fulfilling the obligations arising from the storage of goods covered by the temporary storage or customs warehousing procedures;

(b) fulfilling the obligations arising from the storage of goods covered by the customs warehousing procedures;

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 200 - paragraph 1 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) complying with the particular conditions specified in the authorisation for the operation of a customs warehouse or temporary storage facilities.

(c) complying with the particular conditions specified in the authorisation for the operation of a customs warehouse facilities.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  111

Proposal for a regulation

Article 200 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The holder of the procedure shall be responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising from the placing of the goods under the temporary storage or customs warehousing procedures.

3. The holder of the procedure shall be responsible for fulfilling the obligations arising from the placing of the goods under the customs warehousing procedures.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  112

Proposal for a regulation

Article 203 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Except where  non-Union  goods are placed under another customs procedure, they shall be deemed to have been placed under the temporary storage procedure at the moment of their presentation to customs in the following cases :

1. Where not otherwise declared for a customs procedure, the following non-Union goods shall be deemed to be declared for the temporary storage procedure by the holder of the goods at the moment of their presentation to customs:

(a) where goods brought into the customs territory of the Union  are presented to customs immediately upon their arrival in accordance with Article 124;

(a) goods which are brought into the customs territory of the Union, other than directly into a free zone;

(b) where goods are presented to the customs office of destination in the customs territory of the Union in accordance with the rules governing the transit procedure;

(b) goods which are brought from a free zone into another part of the customs territory of the Union;

(c) where goods are brought from a free zone into another part of the customs territory of the Union.

(c) goods for which the external transit procedure has ended.

 

The customs declaration shall be regarded as having been lodged and accepted by the customs authorities at the moment of presentation of the goods to customs.

Justification

Previously Article 151(1) MCC, this AM defines the act of declaration and its acceptance. Placing the goods under the procedure by the act of presentation, which should be dealt with under Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 126a).

Amendment  113

Proposal for a regulation

Article 203 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. A declaration for temporary storage shall be lodged by the holder of the goods at the latest at the time of their presentation to customs in accordance with paragraph 1.

2. The entry summary declaration, or a transit document replacing it, shall constitute the declaration for the temporary storage procedure.

That declaration may be amended or invalidated and verified by the customs authorities.

Article 149 shall apply to such declarations after presentation of the goods.

Justification

The requirement for an additional declaration for temporary storage is without justification. The entry summary declaration (ENS), or a transit document replacing it, fulfils the requirement for a declaration for storage. Additional data reasonably required for storage under customs supervision can, and should, be part of the notification consistent in presentation of the goods. Amendment of the declaration is governed by the rules for customs declarations, as the ENS has ceased to have effect as such a declaration.

Amendment  114

Proposal for a regulation

Article 218 - paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Waste and scrap resulting from destruction of goods placed under the end-use procedure shall be deemed to be placed under the temporary storage procedure.

5. Waste and scrap resulting from destruction of goods placed under the end-use procedure shall be deemed to be in temporary storage.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  115

Proposal for a regulation

Article 228 - paragraph 2 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) in other cases where duly justified by the type of traffic or required by international agreements.

(c) in other cases where duly justified by the type of traffic, kind of goods or required by international agreements.

Justification

A waiver is not only applicable for type of traffic but also for different kinds of goods, for example electricity.

Amendment  116

Proposal for a regulation

Article 228 - paragraph 2 - point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca) for goods exported by an authorised economic operator.

Justification

In future the AEO status will play a crucial role and it is therefore very important to have real simplifications. Compliant and trustworthy economic operators should be able to take maximum advantage of simplifications as AEO. For this reason, the exemptions for the AEOs in case of pre-departure declarations are fundamental; they should be qualified as essential elements and be clearly stated in the basic act.

Amendment  117

Proposal for a regulation

Article 230 - paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

In adopting the delegated acts referred to in the first paragraph, the Commission shall take into account any burden thereby imposed on economic operators.

Justification

In the Decision of 1 December 2011 it was proposed that allowances be introduced for small consignments which will be uniformly regulated EU-wide – ‘oral customs declarations’. This supplementary text is proposed in order to give the Commission the possibility of such a regulation as part of the delegated acts.

Amendment  118

Proposal for a regulation

Article 233 - paragraph 3a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods in the export procedure and for the purpose of that procedure. The economic interests of the economic operator will thereby be taken into consideration.

Justification

In the Decision of 1 December 2011 it was proposed that allowances be introduced for small consignments which will be uniformly regulated EU-wide – ‘oral customs declarations’. This supplementary text is proposed in order to give the Commission the possibility of such a regulation as part of the delegated acts.

Amendment  119

Proposal for a regulation

Article 234

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying the cases where the export formalities apply in accordance with Article 233(3).

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

 

(a) the rules governing the export procedure;

 

(b) the cases where the export formalities apply in accordance with Article 233(3);

 

(c) the rules for the granting of the authorisation referred to in Article 233(4).

Justification

The retention of uniform export rules throughout the EU is essential for the good functioning of EU trade. The rules for the export procedure or for the simplification of it cannot be seen as to be covered by the empowerment of Articles 232 and 234 of the Commission Proposal.

Amendment  120

Proposal for a regulation

Article 235 - paragraph 3 - point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) goods under the temporary storage procedure which are directly re-exported from a temporary storage facility

(c) goods in temporary storage which are directly re-exported from a temporary storage facility.

Justification

The amendment aims at changing temporary storage from a ‘special customs procedure’ to a ‘status’. This will re-establish the situation before the MCC.

Amendment  121

Proposal for a regulation

Article 236 - paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. The exit summary declaration shall be lodged by one of the following:

 

(a) the person who brings the goods, or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods, out of the customs territory of the Union;

 

(b) the exporter or consignor or other person in whose name or on whose behalf the persons referred to in point (a) are acting;

 

(c) any person who is able to present the goods in question or to have them presented to the competent customs authority.

Justification

The determination of the person lodging an exit summary declaration is a, essential element of the UCC that should be laid down in the UCC itself, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU.

Amendment  122

Proposal for a regulation

Article 236 - paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3b) The customs authorities may waive the obligation to lodge an exit summary declaration for the cases referred to in point (c) of Article 228(2).

Justification

There is no legal hook for the waiver for lodging the exit summary declaration. Therefore, a reference to Article 228(2)(c) is included.

Amendment  123

Proposal for a regulation

Article 236 - paragraph 3 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3c. An exit summary declaration shall be lodged at the customs office of exit. Customs authorities may allow the exit summary declaration to be lodged at another customs office, provided that this office immediately communicates or makes available electronically the necessary particulars to the customs office of exit.

Justification

The competent customs office where the exit summary declaration is lodged is clarified in this provision.

Amendment  124

Proposal for a regulation

Article 237 - paragraph 1 - subparagraph 1a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

However, no amendment shall be possible where any of the following events have occurred:

 

(a) the customs authorities have informed the person who lodged the summary declaration that they intend to examine the goods;

 

(b) the customs authorities have established that the particulars in question are incorrect;

 

(c) the customs authorities have already allowed the removal of the goods.

Justification

We propose to keep Article 181(1) MCC unchanged and include the cases where no amendment of the exit summary declaration is possible in the UCC.

Amendment  125

Proposal for a regulation

Article 239 - paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. The re-export advice shall be lodged by one of the following persons:

 

(a) the person who brings the goods, or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods, out of the customs territory of the Union;

 

(b) the exporter or consignor or other person in whose name or on whose behalf the persons referred to in point (a) are acting;

 

(c) any person who is able to present the goods in question or to have them presented to the competent customs authority.

Justification

Because the person lodging the re-export advice is an essential element of the customs legislation, rules on this person are included here.

Amendment  126

Proposal for a regulation

Article 243 – point 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) the power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

(1) The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article, having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 290 thereof.

Justification

Reference to Article 290 TFEU.

Amendment  127

Proposal for a regulation

Article 243 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 2, 7, 10, 16, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 43, 55, 57, 64, 76, 87, 94, 102, 109, 113, 118, 129, 133, 136, 139, 142, 145, 151, 155, 157, 166, 171, 173, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 190, 192, 195, 198, 202, 217, 219, 230, 232, 234, 238, 241 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 2, 7, 10, 16, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 43, 55, 57, 64, 76, 87, 94, 102, 109, 113, 118, 129, 133, 136, 139, 142, 145, 151, 155, 157, 166, 171, 173, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 190, 192, 195, 198, 202, 217, 219, 230, 232, 234, 238, 241 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from …*. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

 

_____________

 

* OJ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Justification

Introduction of a review period would allow formal reports on the use of the Commission's delegation of powers.

Amendment  128

Proposal for a regulation

Article 243 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. Because some or all provisions of a draft delegated act could fundamentally change the way in which the basic rules set out in this Regulation were applied prior to its entry into force, the Commission shall ensure that proper pre-adoption consultation with the Council, the European Parliament and the business community takes place in good time and that their views are taken into account before a delegated act is adopted so as to avoid potentially negative effects on the Union's competitiveness.

Justification

To allow for a proper exchange of views on, and an appropriate transitional period for delegated acts with a potential impact on the EU's competitiveness, it is important that an appropriate consultation with Member States and stakeholders concerned takes place and that their views are duly taken into account.

Amendment  129

Proposal for a regulation

Article 244 – point 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

(1) The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291 thereof.

Justification

Reference to Article 291 TFEU.

Amendment  130

Proposal for a regulation

Article 244 - paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Where the opinion of the committee is to be obtained by written procedure and reference is made to this paragraph, that procedure shall be terminated without result only when, within the time-limit for delivery of the opinion, the chair of the committee so decides.

6. The written procedure shall be terminated without result where the chair so decides or a committee member so requests. In such a case, the chair shall convene a committee meeting within a reasonable time.

Justification

Why can only the chair decide on termination of the written procedure? What are the consequences of this? This is not in line with Article 3(5) of Regulation 192/2011.

This provision reads as follows:

‘Unless otherwise provided in the basic act, the written procedure shall be terminated without result where, within the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph, the chair so decides or a committee member so requests. In such a case, the chair shall convene a committee meeting within a reasonable time.’

It is preferred to include this provision in the UCC or refer to it.

Amendment  131

Proposal for a regulation

Article 247 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Articles 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 43, 44, 46, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 76, 87, 88, 94, 95, 102, 109, 110, 113, 118, 129, 133, 136, 137, 139, 142, 145, 151, 153, 155, 157, 163, 166, 171, 173, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 190, 192, 195, 198, 202, 217, 219, 230, 232, 234, 238, 241 and 245 shall apply from [date of entry into force of the recast Regulation, as resulting from Article 246].

1. Articles 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 43, 44, 46, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 64, 76, 87, 88, 94, 95, 102, 109, 110, 113, 118, 129, 133, 136, 137, 139, 142, 145, 151, 153, 155, 157, 163, 166, 171, 173, 177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 190, 192, 195, 198, 202, 217, 219, 230, 232, 234, 238, 241, 243, 244 and 245 shall apply from [date of entry into force of the recast Regulation, as resulting from Article 246].

(1)

OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 68…

(2)

OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission proposed in the Union Customs Code (UCC) Recast to adjust some provisions of Regulation (EC) N° 450/2008 to the evolution of customs and other relevant legislation, to align it to procedural requirements resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon and to postpone its application.

Most of the provisions of the Regulation N° 450/2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (MCC) were therefore affected by changes, because either of the impact of the alignment on the Treaty of Lisbon or of the need for adjustments because of the further evolution of relevant EU legislation.

The Customs Union is an essential element in the functioning of the single market and the single market can only function properly when there is a common, consistent application of common, modern customs rules and systems.

In the interests of underpinning a dynamic environment for competitiveness and growth, while at the same time providing for the proper uniform levels of controls of goods, the Rapporteur tabled amendments which promote modern and simple customs rules, based on leading-edge systems, so that controls can be harmonised in such a way that the economic operator (EO) needs to give the information only once.

The Rapporteur respected the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) on recasting techniques for legal acts by tabling her amendments only in relation to the content of the grey-shaded text. On the other hand, at the moment of tabling amendments to her draft Report, Ms Le Grip reserves her right to present new amendments to those provisions which remain unchanged in the Commission's proposal (text in white) in case of agreement within political groups. In this case the intention to table these amendments will be immediately notified to the Commission and Council as required by the above mentioned IIA.

Use of electronic systems by all Member States

In the UCC recast the Commission proposed derogations for one or several Member States from the unconditional and mandatory use of electronic data interchange between customs administration and economic operators introduced in the MCC. Such a policy would lead to a two speed approach to Customs processes across the EU with a risk of widening the gap between those Member States that choose to invest and those that don't. For the EO this would also create a need to duplicate processes in place, either paper based or electronic based, generating considerable extra cost to business in Europe. Therefore the Rapporteur considers essential that the UCC has to be implemented and applied uniformly in all 27 Member States preserving the fundamental spirit of pan-European e-customs outlined in MCC. Exceptionally, derogations may be allowed for a limited period of time and specifications on the criteria granting these derogations should be dealt through delegated acts.

Valorisation of the AEO status in the UCC recast

The Rapporteur is of the opinion that holding an Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status should allow compliant and trustworthy EOs to be able to take maximum advantage of widespread use of simplification. Once AEO criteria are fulfilled, any criteria for the use of simplifications related to the conduct of operations should not be re-examined.

The link between AEO status and reduced customs controls should also be better articulated in the UCC recast. It is currently mentioned in the EU AEO Guidelines. The main conditions for granting AEO status are also too essential to be dealt with through delegated acts.

Testing further simplification using electronic data-processing techniques

Testing further simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques could only be beneficial for developing a dynamic environment for competitiveness and growth. The scope and the time limit of this testing, nevertheless, should be made it clear in the regulation itself. Once the time of the test is expired, the simplification should be evaluated and in case it is found successful and beneficial for the Member States, it can be integrated in the legislative text via delegated acts.

Rules on the acquisition of origin and preferential origin of goods

The amendments in this respect have the objective to integrate in the basic act the main principles that serve to rule/guide the Commission in its acts (delegated acts). In particular, it is the Rapporteur's opinion that the criterion governing the application of rules of origin and the criterion governing the application of the preferential origin of goods are essential elements to make it explicit in the basic act. The proposals are taken from the WTO agreement on rules of origin and from Art. 72 and 98(1) of EC Regulation 2454/93.

Centralised clearance as ruled in the MCC

As far centralised clearance, the Rapporteur proposes an AM going back to the original MCC Article (106), where the supervising customs office would grant or refuse the release of goods, and the presentation customs office would carry only security and safety examination. This affects Article 138(2) and (3) of the UCC recast.

No need for a separate declaration for temporary storage

It is the Rapporteur's view that the requirement for an additional declaration for temporary storage is without justification. The entry summary declaration or a transit document replacing it, already fulfils the requirement for a declaration for storage. Additional data reasonably required for storage under customs supervision can be part of the notification consistent in presentation of the goods. The UCC recast proposal seeks the requirement for an additional and separate declaration for temporary storage. This will have a significant impact on trade, as EOs are not only commonly both the carrier and the holder of the goods, but will invariably lodge a customs declaration for release to another procedure within hours of presentation, certainly within one working day. The current proposals would require that operators lodge what is essentially the same information twice.

Rules on the lodgement and responsible person

Lodging an entry summary declaration for a good is a precondition for this to be imported into the EU. It is, therefore, an essential aspect to be ruled in the basic act and not simply through delegated acts. A multiple filing system as recommended by the WCO Safe Framework of Standards has proven to be the preferred way to obtain quality information for risk assessment and been implemented successfully in many part of the world. This system is based on the principle that information needs to be collected from the person who has it available and holds the appropriate right to submit it.

Pre-arrival notification

This Rapporteur's amendment offers the opportunity for pre-arrival notification of customs decisions on the release/control of the declaration provided that they "are made available for customs controls" and to "the satisfaction of the customs authorities". To be noted that this was the intention of Article 112(1) of MCC while the proposal for the recast UCC makes acceptance entirely dependent upon presentation of the goods, which means the arrival and the availability for control of the goods. This precludes the possibility of a simple, beneficial, facilitation for trade being provided.


ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

Ref.: D(2012)36293

Mr Malcolm Harbour,

Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market

and Consumer Protection

ASP 13E130

Brussels

Subject:     Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (recast)

                  (COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012 – 2012/0027(COD))

Dear Chairman,

The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 87 on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows:

"If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible.

In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 156 and 157, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.

However, if in accordance with point 8 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, the committee responsible intends also to submit amendments to the codified parts of the proposal, it shall immediately notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, and the latter should inform the committee, prior to the vote pursuant to Rule 54, of its position on the amendments and whether or not it intends to withdraw the recast proposal."

Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

In conclusion, after discussing it at its meeting of 10 July 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by 23 votes in favour and no abstentions(1), recommends that your Committee, as the committee responsible, proceed to examine the above proposal in accordance with Rule 87.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Encl.: Opinion of the Consultative Working Party.

(1)

Members present : Klaus-Heiner Lehne (President), Evelyn Regner (Vice-President), Françoise Castex (Vice-President), Sebastian Valentin Bodu (Vice-President), Marielle Gallo, Giuseppe Gargani, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Tadeusz Zwiefka, Luigi Berlinguer, Françoise Castex, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Bernhard Rapkay, Rebecca Taylor, Alexandra Thein, Cecilia Wikström, Christian Engström, Sajjad Karim, Jiří Maštálka, Piotr Borys, Luis de Grandes Pascual, József Szájer, Axel Voss, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Eva Lichtenberger.


ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

 

 

 

CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY

OF THE LEGAL SERVICES

Brussels, 22 August 2012

OPINION

             FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

                                                              THE COUNCIL

                                                              THE COMMISSION

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (recast)

COM(2012)0064 of 20.2.2012 – 2012/0027(COD)

Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 29 March, 3 April and 24 May 2012 for the purpose of examining, among others, the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.

At those meetings(1), an examination of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, as follows.

1) As far as the explanatory memorandum is concerned, in order to be drafted in full compliance with the relevant requirements laid down by the Inter-institutional Agreement such a document should have specified which provisions of the earlier act remain unchanged in the proposal, as is provided for under point 6(a)(iii) of that agreement.

2) In Article 6(2)(b), the initial words "the possibility" should have been identified with a "substantive deletion" sign, consisting of a double strikethrough combined with a grey shaded type.

3) The following parts of the recast text having been already marked with double strikethrough should have also been marked with the grey-shaded type generally used for identifying substantive changes:

-in the first citation appearing in the preamble, the article number "26";

- in Article 11(2), the final words "ensuring an adequate level of data protection";

- immediately after the text of Article 15, the entire existing wordings of Article 10(1)(b), (c) and (d) and of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008;

- in Article 23(b), the words "review of";

- in Article 128, the article numbers "96" and "98";

- in Article 174(4), the article number "131";

- in Article 222(3), the words "shall specify the period within which".

4) in Article 168(1)(b), the indication (a) should be replaced by (i), (i) should be replaced by (ii), (ii) should be replaced by (iii) and (iii) should be replaced by (iv).

In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing legal text, without any change in its substance.

C. PENNERA                                  H. LEGAL                            L. ROMERO REQUENA

Jurisconsult                                       Jurisconsult                            Director General

(1)

The Consultative Working Party had at its disposal the English, French and German language versions of the proposal and worked on the basis of the English version, being the master-copy language version of the text under discussion.


OPINION of the Committee on International Trade (11.10.2012)

for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (Recast)

(COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012– 2012/0027(COD))

Rapporteur: Cristiana Muscardini

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Your rapporteur:

considers that, to encourage the process of EU integration, ensure competitiveness between operators and external importers, combat the illegal trade in counterfeit goods and protect European consumers, the EU Customs Code must be revised so as to ensure customs procedures are harmonised, simplified and uniform in all the Member States and guarantee the free movement of goods;

indicates some concerns, which this Committee has already expressed in the opinion on the modernisation of customs it adopted in October 2011, and which are not resolved by the UCC presented by the Commission;

considers, therefore, that the Commission proposal is not moving in the right direction: far from ensuring that customs rules are further streamlined and harmonised, it appears to remove some of the attempts at simplification introduced in the Modernised Customs Code (MCC) while also proposing a series of possible exemptions from principles and practices - in relation to data exchange systems, for example - which run counter to the objective of achieving a uniform customs environment;

regrets the decision to postpone the implementation date for the new Customs Code to 31 December 2020 and thereby further delay the introduction on the ground of new customs-related IT systems in the Member States;

suggests, with a view to establishing a single European customs system, the setting up, on an experimental basis, of a European rapid-intervention task force to support the work of the customs services at the Union’s external borders and a public data bank on the dangerous goods intercepted by the customs authorities; calls on the Council, therefore, to support the establishment of new systems that can identify the origin, and ensure the traceability, of products;

calls on the Commission to maintain Article 53 of the Community Customs Code (CDC) to ensure that the origin of goods continues to be determined according to the place where their last substantial economically justified processing occurred; at the same time stresses that export certificates on non-preferential origin issued by the relevant authorities of third countries must also in future be recognised by the EU; stresses that changes to the status quo would burden businesses with administrative procedures and undermine ongoing harmonisation efforts at WTO level;

believes there is a need for the speedy introduction of modernisation measures such as simpler customs legislation and interoperable computerised customs systems throughout the Union, as well as a need for greater coordination of prevention and prosecution activities by the tax police at European level; hopes that the Customs Code will stress the central role of eliminating customs declarations in order to facilitate trade;

identifies the need, in a functional EU of 27+1 Member States, to define a common set of mandatory physical checks on goods applicable to all the different points of entry (ports, airports, roads) to the Union;

calls for complete harmonisation in relation to the collection of VAT on imported goods, the opening hours of customs services and the fees and penalties for non-compliance with the Union’s Customs Code, as existing differences are resulting in trade distortions;

stresses the need for consistency in the management of the EU’s external borders; reiterates its call for the Commission and the Member States to step up the harmonisation of customs control systems on the one hand, and sanctions on the other hand; calls for the establishment of operational platforms that are common to the Member States and the Commission and stresses the need to provide customs officers and economic operators with adequate training in order to ensure the uniform enforcement of EU rules;

reiterates the importance of ensuring equal treatment for authorised economic operators (AEO) throughout the Community customs territory as regards uniformity of the controls and mutual recognition; expresses its concerns about the use of delegated acts to regulate the activities of AEO;

calls on the Commission to include in the new Customs Code more rigorous requirements for the provision of the European Union’s customs representation services, helping to increase the level of professionalism and ownership on the part of these intermediaries and laying down clear rules to guide relations between customs agents and forwarding undertakings, so as to change the role of the agents to that of consolidators for small and medium-sized importers that do not have the capacity to implement customs compliance programmes similar to the European AEO;

welcomes the activation of the cooperation agreement on the mutual recognition of AEO between the European Union and Japan; encourages the Commission to negotiate similar agreements with other major partners, with full regard for the role of Parliament, and to include this element in the negotiations on bilateral trade agreements; emphasises the value of stepping up customs cooperation with Russia and the Eastern Partnership and Mediterranean Partnership countries;

encourages the Commission to develop multilateral cooperation and coordination plans within the World Customs Organisation (WCO), in order to lay down joint standards and rules on customs procedures;

believes that an agreement on trade facilitation as part of the Doha Round would benefit the member states of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), notably by strengthening legal certainty and reducing commercial costs; thus encourages the Commission for its part to push forward the conclusion of this agreement with a view to the ministerial conference next December;

stresses the importance of ensuring that legitimate customs checks carried out by third countries are not, in certain circumstances, misused to create new, de facto non-tariff barriers to goods originating from the EU.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) In order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of: the adoption within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation of a work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems; decisions allowing one or several Member States to use means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques; decisions authorising Member States to test simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques; decisions requesting Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision; common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas; the management of the tariff quota and tariff ceilings and the management of the surveillance of the release for free circulation or export of goods; the determination of the tariff classification of goods; the temporary derogation from the rules on preferential origin of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union; the determination of the origin of goods; the temporary prohibitions relating to the use of comprehensive guarantees; the mutual assistance between the customs authorities in case of incurrence of a customs debt; decisions on repayment or remission of an amount of import or export duty; the official opening hours of customs offices; the determination of the tariff subheading of the goods which are subject to the highest rate of import or export duty where a consignment is made of goods falling under different tariff subheadings; Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

(4) In order to ensure uniform conditions for implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of: the adoption within six months of the entry into force of this Regulation of a work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems; decisions allowing one or several Member States to use means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques; decisions authorising Member States to test simplifications in the application of the customs legislation using electronic data-processing techniques; decisions requesting Member States to take, suspend, annul, amend or revoke a decision; common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas; the management of the tariff quota and tariff ceilings and the management of the surveillance of the release for free circulation or export of goods; the determination of the tariff classification of goods and the creation of unified customs duty collection systems in all Member States; the temporary derogation from the rules on preferential origin of goods benefiting from preferential measures adopted unilaterally by the Union; the determination of the origin and traceability of goods from third countries; the temporary prohibitions relating to the use of comprehensive guarantees; the mutual assistance between the customs authorities in case of incurrence of a customs debt; decisions on repayment or remission of an amount of import or export duty; the official opening hours of customs offices; the determination of the tariff subheading of the goods which are subject to the highest rate of import or export duty where a consignment is made of goods falling under different tariff subheadings; Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

Justification

It is essential for consumer protection and for EU industry for the Commission to be able to adopt measures on traceability of the origin of products transiting EU customs from third countries, as a means of prevention and of combating counterfeiting.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a) Further modernisation of the Union's customs legislation should take due account of the views of economic operators in order to ensure effective administrative simplification.

Justification

Consultation of economic operators in any future reform of the Union Customs Code is one of the essential elements leading to an efficient simplification of customs procedures.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) In the interests of facilitating business, all persons should continue to have the right to appoint a representative in their dealings with the customs authorities. However, it should no longer be possible for that right of representation to be reserved under a law laid down by one of the Member States. Furthermore, a customs representative who complies with the criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator, should be entitled to provide his services in a Member State other than the one where he is established.

(18) In the interests of facilitating the clearance of trade transactions, all persons should continue to have the right to appoint a representative in their dealings with the customs authorities. However, it should no longer be possible for that right of representation to be reserved under a law laid down by one of the Member States. Harmonised Union rules should therefore be laid down for customs representatives operating in the single market. Furthermore, a customs representative who complies with the criteria for the granting of the status of authorised economic operator, should be entitled to provide his services in a Member State other than the one where he is established if he satisfies harmonised Union-wide criteria and hence can use unified customs duty collection systems.

Justification

If authorised economic operators and customs representatives are to be authorised to provide services in all the Member States, unified customs duty collection systems should also be ensured in order to simplify and accelerate customs services across the EU.

In order to ensure the uniformity of rules for customs representatives in the EU27 and avoid any possible long-term distortions to the single market, these rules should be laid down at the EU level.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(19a) Compliant and trustworthy economic operators should benefit from international agreements providing for the mutual recognition of 'authorised economic operators' status.

Justification

The conclusion of cooperation agreements on the mutual recognition of the authorized economic operators (AEO) should be one of the priorities in ongoing trade negotiations, especially those of deep and comprehensive trade agreements between the EU and third countries.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) In order to ensure a consistent and equal treatment of persons concerned by customs formalities and controls the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of determining the conditions relating to customs representation and to decisions taken by the customs authorities, including those relating to authorised economic operator and binding information, and relating to controls and formalities to be carried out on cabin baggage and hold baggage.

(25) In order to ensure a consistent and equal treatment of persons concerned by customs formalities and controls decisions in respect of determining the conditions relating to customs representation and to decisions taken by the customs authorities, including those relating to authorised economic operator and binding information, and relating to controls and formalities to be carried out on cabin baggage and hold baggage, should be adopted by means of implementing acts, in accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty.

Justification

All the above activities (customs representation, decisions taken by the customs authorities, AEO, binding information, controls and formalities to be carried out on cabin baggage and hold baggage) have an impact, direct or indirect, on the financial interests of the European Union and Member States. In the case of customs representation, it is self-evident that customs representatives, having the responsibility to calculate in the customs declaration the correct amount of duties and of other levies to be paid to Customs, can potentially cause with their activity a prejudice to the budget of the EU Member States. It is essential therefore to involve the EU Member States, represented in the various comitology committees, in any decision concerning the conditions relating to customs representation. To assure an effective participation of Member States to the process of adoption of the implementing acts, is opportune to adopt the examination procedure referred to in Article 244(4).

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 - paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. The Commission may in duly justified exceptional cases adopt decisions allowing one or several Member States to use, by way of a temporary derogation from paragraph 1, means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques.

Justification

The uniformity of rules underpinning the Union Customs Code should be the general rule. Any derogation from this should be exceptional, duly justified and of a temporary nature in order to avoid permanent distortions of the single market.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission may adopt decisions allowing one or several Member States to use, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, means of exchange and storage of data other than electronic data-processing techniques.

deleted

Justification

It is essential to business and for the process of harmonization that Union Customs Code is implemented and applied in the same way in all 27 member States without any derogation.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States may establish, in accordance with Union law, the conditions under which a customs representative may provide services in the Member State where he is established. However, without prejudice to the application of less stringent criteria by the Member State concerned, a customs representative who complies with the criteria laid down in Article 22(a), to (d) shall be entitled to provide such services in a Member State other than the one where he is established.

3. Member States may establish, in accordance with Union law, the conditions under which a customs representative may provide services in the Member State where he is established. A customs representative must be established on the territory of the European Union. In order to provide customs services in a Member State other than the one where he is established, customs representative must have an authorization, granted by the competent national customs authority on the basis of common criteria applicable throughout the territory of the European Union and valid in all Member States.

Justification

The customs representative should not be confused with the AEO. These two figures need to be kept separated, since they have different nature and aims (the AEO is a status, the customs representative a working activity, that in certain EU Member States is regulated as a profession). Accordingly, the possibility for a customs representative to provide customs services in a Member State other than the one where he is established, should be based on separate criteria, different from those referred to the AEO, highlighting specific requirements in terms of reliability, competence and experience. The necessity to introduce common criteria at EU level for the provision of customs representation services in member States other than the one where the customs representative is established, aims to avoid that Member States will create excessive obstacles or different degrees of difficulty in obtaining the above authorisation. This solution, among other things, reflects the point n. 34. of the Report of the European Parliament of 25 November 2011 on modernisation of customs (2011/2083(INI)), that “Calls on the Commission to include in the MCC more rigorous requirements for the provision of the EU’s customs representation services, helping to increase the level of professionalism and ownership on the part of these intermediaries and laying down clear rules to guide relations between customs agents and forwarding undertakings, so as to change the role of the agents to that of consolidators for small and medium-sized importers that do not have the capacity to implement customs compliance programmes similar to those of European AEOs”.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 244(4), specifying:

(a) the cases where the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) is waived;

(a) the cases where the obligation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) is waived;

(b) the rules on the conferral and proving of the entitlement referred to in Article 18(3);

(b) the criteria referred to in Article 18(3);

(c) the cases where the evidence referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 19(2) is not required by the customs authorities.

(c) the cases where the evidence referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 19(2) is not required by the customs authorities.

Justification

All the above activities (customs representation, decisions taken by the customs authorities, AEO, binding information, controls and formalities to be carried out on cabin baggage and hold baggage) have an impact, direct or indirect, on the financial interests of the European Union and Member States. In the case of customs representation, it is self-evident that customs representatives, having the responsibility to calculate in the customs declaration the correct amount of duties and of other levies to be paid to Customs, can potentially cause with their activity a prejudice to the budget of the EU Member States. It is essential therefore to involve the EU Member States, represented in the various comitology committees, in any decision concerning the conditions relating to customs representation. To assure an effective participation of Member States to the process of adoption of the implementing acts, is opportune to adopt the examination procedure referred to in Article 244(4).

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Delegation of power

deleted

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

 

(a) the rules on the procedure for taking the decisions referred to in Article 24;

 

(b) the cases where the applicant is given no opportunity to express his point of view in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 24(4);

 

(c) the rules for monitoring, re-assessing and suspending decisions in accordance with Article 24(8).

 

Justification

These are essential aspects of the Union Customs Code and should be defined in the basic act and not be subject to delegated acts.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 54 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A document proving origin may be issued in the Union where the exigencies of trade so require.

3. A document proving origin may be issued in the Union provided that documentary proof of the origin of the goods has been produced.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 59

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may adopt measures to determine the origin of goods.

The Commission may adopt measures to determine the origin and traceability of goods.

Justification

It is essential for consumer protection and for EU industry for the Commission to be able to adopt measures on traceability of the origin of products transiting EU customs from third countries, as a means of prevention and of combating counterfeiting.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 77 - paragraph 4 - subparagraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

If the guarantee has not been released, it may also be used, within the limits of the secured amount, for the recovery of amounts of import or export duty and other charges payable following post-release control of those goods.

If a single guarantee has not been released, it may also be used, within the limits of the secured amount, for the recovery of amounts of import or export duty and other charges payable following post-release control of those goods.

Justification

This provision could be interpreted by certain Customs administrations in the sense that the release of a comprehensive guarantee (i.e. a guarantee covering more customs operations), can be blocked for an undetermined period, each time a post-release control can potentially be carried out on cleared goods. The main characteristic of the comprehensive guarantees is that these are renewed automatically by insurance companies, on their date of expiry, for a further period of one or more years, unless a notice of cancellation is expressly given by the operator. According to the above paragraph, customs administrations could oppose to the release of the guarantee, obliging operators to left them indefinitely open, up to completion of post-release controls. In this case, the additional costs due to the extension of the length of the guarantee would be on the operator’s charge, so compromising their competitiveness. Moreover, this solution can be a deterrent the use of the scheme of the comprehensive guarantee, which is commonly recognized as an important trade facilitation tool, inducing operators to use exclusively single guarantees.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 181 - paragraph 3 - subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

An authorised economic operator for customs simplifications shall be deemed to fulfil the condition laid down in point (b), insofar as the activity pertaining to the special procedure concerned was taken into account when granting that authorisation.

Without prejudice to the additional special conditions governing the procedure in question, an authorised economic operator for customs simplifications shall be deemed to fulfil the condition laid down in point (b) of this paragraph.

Justification

AEOs, by definition, should be seen as always to meet criteria related to compliance.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 196 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods under the Union transit procedure and regarding the end of that procedure.

4. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods under the Union transit procedure and regarding the end of that procedure, including the use of a manifest transmitted by data exchange systems as a transit declaration by any airline or shipping line that operates a significant number of flights or voyages between Member States.

Justification

The use of electronic manifests fully meets the requirements both for electronic declaration and for presentation; it is, in fact, fully in line with the concept of declaration by entry in the records, which is the one of the pillars of the MCC. Forcing these movements into NCTS, whether or not reduced data sets, will provide no benefits for either trade or custom and will add cost to business in the EU.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 233 - paragraph 3 a new

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. Upon application, the customs authorities may authorise a person to use simplifications regarding the placement of goods under the export procedure and regarding the end of that procedure.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 234

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying the cases where the export formalities apply in accordance with Article 233(3).

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 243, specifying:

 

(a) the rules governing the export procedure;

 

(b) the cases where the export formalities apply in accordance with Article 233(3);

 

(c) the rules for granting of the authorisation referred to in Article 233(4).

Justification

The retention of uniform export rules throughout the EU is essential both to the Express industry and to EU business in general. The rules for the export procedure or for simplification of it cannot be seen as to be covered by the empowerment of Articles 232 and 234 of the Commission Proposal.

PROCEDURE

Title

Union Customs Code (Recast)

References

COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012 – 2012/0027(COD)

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

IMCO

13.3.2012

 

 

 

Opinion by

       Date announced in plenary

INTA

13.3.2012

Rapporteur

       Date appointed

Cristiana Muscardini

26.3.2012

Discussed in committee

21.6.2012

18.9.2012

 

 

Date adopted

11.10.2012

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

26

0

0

Members present for the final vote

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Maria Badia i Cutchet, Nora Berra, David Campbell Bannerman, Daniel Caspary, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, Christofer Fjellner, Yannick Jadot, Metin Kazak, Franziska Keller, Bernd Lange, David Martin, Vital Moreira, Paul Murphy, Cristiana Muscardini, Niccolò Rinaldi, Helmut Scholz, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Henri Weber, Paweł Zalewski

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Josefa Andrés Barea, George Sabin Cutaş, Jörg Leichtfried, Marietje Schaake, Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Evžen Tošenovský


PROCEDURE

Title

Union Customs Code (Recast)

References

COM(2012)0064 – C7-0045/2012 – 2012/0027(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

17.2.2012

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

IMCO

13.3.2012

 

 

 

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

INTA

13.3.2012

JURI

13.3.2012

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Constance Le Grip

14.9.2011

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

26.4.2012

31.5.2012

17.9.2012

28.11.2012

 

17.12.2012

24.1.2013

21.2.2013

 

Date adopted

18.12.2012

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

31

1

2

Members present for the final vote

Pablo Arias Echeverría, Adam Bielan, Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Birgit Collin-Langen, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, António Fernando Correia de Campos, Cornelis de Jong, Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Evelyne Gebhardt, Louis Grech, Thomas Händel, Małgorzata Handzlik, Philippe Juvin, Sandra Kalniete, Hans-Peter Mayer, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Phil Prendergast, Robert Rochefort, Zuzana Roithová, Heide Rühle, Christel Schaldemose, Bernadette Vergnaud, Barbara Weiler

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Raffaele Baldassarre, Marielle Gallo, María Irigoyen Pérez, Constance Le Grip, Emma McClarkin, Sylvana Rapti, Olle Schmidt, Patricia van der Kammen

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Oldřich Vlasák

Date tabled

26.2.2013

Last updated: 3 September 2013Legal notice