Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson GmbH. (Customs Duties ) [1973] EUECJ R-8/73 (12 July 1973)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1973/R873.html
Cite as: [1973] EUECJ R-8/73

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61973J0008
Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1973.
Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson GmbH.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany.
Value for customs purposes.
Case 8-73.
European Court reports 1973 Page 00897
Greek special edition 1972-1973 Page 00645
Portuguese special edition 1973 Page 00345
Spanish special edition 1973 Page 00243
Swedish special edition II Page 00139
Finnish special edition II Page 00139

++++
1 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES - REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL - VALIDITY
2 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES - DETERMINATION - DEFERRED PAYMENT - PRICE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - DIFFERENT PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT - PROOF - CONDITIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL COURT
( REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL 11 ( 2 ) ( B ))

1 . THE AUTHORITY FOR REGULATION NO 803/68/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968, ON THE VALUE OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES IS TO BE FOUND IN ARTICLE 235 OF THE TREATY AND REVEALS NO FACTOR CALCULATED TO AFFECT ITS VALIDITY .
2 . ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( SECOND BRANCH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT IS INADEQUATE, AS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PRICE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT, TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT PAYABLE INCLUDES CREDIT CHARGES . WHAT MUST BE PROVED IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER PRICE OF A DEFINITE AMOUNT WHICH THE BUYER OR OTHER BUYERS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ENTITLED TO SETTLE IN THE EVENT OF PAYMENT BEFORE THE AGREED DATE . IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO JUDGE IN EVERY CASE OF THIS KIND WHETHER OR NOT PROOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DIFFERENT PRICE .

IN CASE 8/73
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
HAUPTZOLLAMT BREMERHAVEN SUPPORTED BY THE FEDERAL MINISTER OF FINANCE, AS INTERVENER,
AND
MASSEY-FERGUSON GMBH, OF KASSEL,

ON THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES AND, AS A SECONDARY CONSIDERATION, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) ( B ) OF THE SAME REGULATION,

1 BY AN ORDER DATED 23 JANUARY 1973, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE FOLLOWING 19 FEBRUARY, THE BUNDESFINANZHOF REFERRED, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, TWO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS ON THE VALIDITY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 803/68/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ( OJ L 148, P . 6 ) ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES .
THE FIRST QUESTION
2 BY THE FIRST QUESTION IT IS ASKED WHETHER THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION IS TO BE FOUND IN ARTICLE 235 OF THE TREATY, ON WHICH IT IS BASED, OR IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE TREATY .
3 THE FIRST RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION DECLARES THAT IT IS ADOPTED BY VIRTUE OF " THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 235 THEREOF ".
THUS IT IS PROPER TO EXAMINE FIRST OF ALL WHETHER THIS ARTICLE CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT LEGAL BASIS .
ARTICLE 235 AUTHORIZES THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES IF ACTION BY THE COMMUNITY SHOULD PROVE NECESSARY TO ATTAIN, IN THE COURSE OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMMON MARKET, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY AND IF THE TREATY HAS NOT PROVIDED THE NECESSARY POWERS .
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY UNDER ARTICLE 3 ( A ) AND ( B ) OF THE TREATY .
THE FUNCTIONING OF A CUSTOMS UNION REQUIRES OF NECESSITY THE UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF THE VALUATION FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES OF GOODS IMPORTED FROM THIRD COUNTRIES SO THAT THE LEVEL OF PROTECTION EFFECTED BY THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IS THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY .
SUCH A UNIFORM DETERMINATION DOES NOT FOLLOW TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FROM THE FACT THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE ALL ADHERENTS OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES SIGNED ON 15 DECEMBER 1950 . THIS IS BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONVENTION HAVE TO GIVE THE SIGNATORY STATES THE POWER TO AMEND CERTAIN SPECIFIC MATTERS .
AS THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 100 FOR THE APPROXIMATION OF LEGISLATION BY MEANS OF DIRECTIVES DOES NOT PROVIDE A REALLY ADEQUATE SOLUTION, ONE MUST EXAMINE IF THE PROVISIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CUSTOMS UNION AND THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY FURNISHED THE COUNCIL WITH AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR ACTION .
4 IF IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE CUSTOMS UNION JUSTIFIES A WIDE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 9, 27, 28, 111 AND 113 OF THE TREATY AND OF THE POWERS WHICH THESE PROVISIONS CONFER ON THE INSTITUTIONS TO ALLOW THEM THROUGHLY TO CONTROL EXTERNAL TRADE BY MEASURES TAKEN BOTH INDEPENDENTLY AND BY AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE COUNCIL COULD NOT LEGITIMATELY CONSIDER THAT RECOURSE TO THE PROCEDURE OF ARTICLE 235 WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF LEGAL CERTAINTY . THIS IS THE MORE SO AS THE REGULATION IN QUESTION WAS ADOPTED DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD .
BY REASON OF THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 235 THIS COURSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE CRITICIZED SINCE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RULES OF THE TREATY ON THE FORMING OF THE COUNCIL' S DECISIONS OR ON THE DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT TO BE DISREGARDED .
5 NO ONE HAS DISPUTED THE FACT THAT ON THE ADOPTION OF REGULATION NO 803/68 THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 235 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PROPER MANNER .
6 CONSEQUENTLY, AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THIS REGULATION IS TO BE FOUND IN ARTICLE 235 OF THE TREATY, EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION RAISED HAS EXPOSED NO FACTOR WHICH IS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING ITS VALIDITY .
THE SECOND QUESTION
7 IN THE SECOND QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( SECOND BRANCH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68, IT IS ASKED WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY " THAT ANOTHER PRICE OF A DEFINITE AMOUNT HAS BEEN FIXED BETWEEN THE SELLER AND THE BUYER, OR OTHER BUYERS, FOR CASH PAYMENT " OR WHETHER IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT INCLUDES A CHARGE FOR CREDIT .
8 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISION IN DISPUTE THAT THE PRICE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING THE VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES IN THE CASE OF DEFERRED PAYMENT IS THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT, UNLESS A DISCOUNT FOR CASH PAYMENT WAS PROVIDED OR THE EXISTENCE OF A DIFFERENT PRICE FOR CASH PAYMENT WAS PROVED AT THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT .
9 TO INTERPRET THIS LAST PROVISION, ONE MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF ITS AIM WHICH IS TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF GOODS, EXPRESSED AS A SPECIFIC SUM WHICH CAN BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE CUSTOMS DUTY TO BE IMPOSED ON THE GOODS .
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DIFFERENT PRICE, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH COULD BE PROVED IF NECESSARY, IS TO BE EXPRESSED IN FIGURES .
THAT IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT INCLUDES CREDIT CHARGES AND BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY POWER ON THE PART OF THE BUYER OR OTHER BUYERS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES TO CARRY OUT THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY PAYING BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME A SPECIFIC PRICE LOWER THAN THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT .
10 IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO JUDGE IN EVERY CASE OF THIS KIND, WHETHER OR NOT PROOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DIFFERENT PRICE WITHIN THE MEANING INDICATED ABOVE .
11 AS REGARDS THIS QUESTION ONE MUST REPLY THAT IT IS INADEQUATE AS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PRICE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT PAYABLE INCLUDES CREDIT CHARGES . WHAT MUST BE PROVED IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER PRICE OF A DEFINITE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE BUYER OR OTHER BUYERS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ENTITLED TO SETTLE IN THE EVENT OF PAYMENT BEFORE THE AGREED DATE .

12 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, INSOFAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE BUNDESFINANZHOF, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF BY ORDER DATED 23 JANUARY 1973, HEREBY RULES :
1 . THE BASIS OF AUTHORIZATION FOR REGULATION NO 803/68/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES IS TO BE FOUND IN ARTICLE 235 OF THE TREATY, AND THE EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION RAISED HAS REVEALED NO FACTOR CAPABLE OF AFFECTING ITS VALIDITY .
2 . ARTICLE 11 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( SECOND BRANCH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ) OF THE SAID REGULATION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT IS INADEQUATE, AS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PRICE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT, TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE FOR FORWARD PAYMENT PAYABLE INCLUDES CREDIT CHARGES . WHAT MUST BE PROVED IS THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER PRICE OF A DEFINITE AMOUNT WHICH THE BUYER OR OTHER BUYERS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ENTITLED TO SETTLE IN THE EVENT OF PAYMENT BEFORE THE AGREED DATE .