On 20 April, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court in its general sitting, when reviewing the case on dispute regarding method applicable to determination of customs value of goods, decided to stay proceedings in the case and to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling. The Supreme Court passed such decision, because there are doubts regarding interpretation of Article 29 (1) of the Council Regulation No 2913/92 (EEC) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, and the Court of Justice of the European Union has not provided interpretation of this norm. In opinion of the Supreme Court, interpretation of this norm is crucial in adjudication of the case.  

In March 2010, the applicant “Latspas” Ltd as principal, processed customs declaration for transit of goods.  It was planned to perform transit of goods from Russian Federation through Community territory to Republic of Kazakhstan. Transit of goods was not completed, because goods did not arrive at the customs point of the Republic of Lithuania.  Thus, by decision of the State Revenue Service of 2 November 2010, the applicant was imposed an obligation to pay customs tax and value-added tax.  

The decision of the State Revenue Service in the part regarding determination of customs value of goods is reasoned by the argument that, according to information available to the service, at the moment, when calculation was performed, it was impossible to determine customs value of goods by using first five methods of evaluation, so customs value of goods was determined in accordance with provisions of Article 31 of the Council Regulation No 2913/92 (EEC) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, using information available in the Community.  

The Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to give preliminary ruling on following questions: 1) whether Article 29 (1) of the Council Regulation No 2913/92 (EEC) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code  must be construed in the way that method determined in the Article is applicable also in cases, when import of goods  and release thereof for free circulation in the Community customs territory were carried out, by taking goods chargeable with import customs tax, which were not sold for export to Community customs territory, but to non-Community territory, from customs supervision illegally during transit procedure?  2) whether the term “sequentially” mentioned in Article 30 (1) must be interpreted in interconnection with right to good governance, inter alia principle of reasoning of administrative act, included in Article 41 of the European Charter on Fundamental Rights in the way that customs service is obliged to justify in the administrative act, why methods of determination of customs value of goods, which are mentioned in Article 29 or Article 30 may not be used in particular circumstances, to conclude that method indicated in Article 31 must be applied?    


Information prepared by Baiba Kataja, the Press secretary of the Supreme Court
Telephone: 67020396; e-mail: baiba.kataja@at.gov.lv