In a Hungarian case the European Court of Justice had to review the obligation of the Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for failure to comply with the customs legislation and held that a fine corresponding to 50% of the shortfall in customs duties is in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Following a request for a preliminary ruling by the Hamburg Tax Court, the ECJ held that Article 215 (4) Customs Code, dealing with the determination of the place of origin of import VAT is not automatically applicable if goods were brought into the customs territory of the EU in breach of customs rules and if they are subsequently transported to another Member State.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to deal with questions regarding the exemption from import VAT on the re-importation into the EU of goods exempt from customs duties. Specifically, whether the import VAT exemption is accessory to the exemption from customs duties for re-imported goods or if both exemptions are to be applied independently.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested that the customs duty due following an administrative offence should not be compounded with a charge to import VAT if, in the circumstances, release of the goods into free circulation within the EU can be excluded.
The EU is planning a comprehensive reform of its customs legislation that will fundamentally change the way goods are imported and exported in the single market. The necessary steps were initiated in 2023. One of the most important changes is the replacement of the current status of Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) with the new designation of Trust & Check Trader (T&C Trader).
The Council today agreed on a partial negotiating mandate on a fundamental reform of the EU customs framework. The overhaul will give customs authorities across the EU a more modern toolbox to deal with trends such as huge increases in trade volumes, especially in e-commerce, a fast-growing number of EU standards that must be checked at the border and shifting geopolitical realities and crises.
Under new Customs related laws and regulations effective October 1, 2023, foreign companies that import into Japan without a sales transaction, but use a separate local company to act as importer of record, need to assess their supply chains.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court has given its opinion on the territorial jurisdiction (competence) of German central customs authorities as regards electricity and energy tax relief applications and commented on the point in time when a change of jurisdiction in accordance with Section 26 Fiscal Code is possible. Competence of the customs authority is only transferred in the event of a change in circumstances and if the previously competent tax authority has already started processing the specific administrative procedure.
On 26 March 2026 the Council and the Parliament agreed to overhaul the EU customs framework, giving the Union a more modern toolbox to deal with trends such as huge increases in trade volumes, especially in e-commerce, a fast-growing number of EU standards that must be checked at the border and challenging geopolitical realities.
In its decision in Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland (C-529/16) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that Articles 28 to 31 of the Customs Code (old version) must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.
In its judgement of 16 January 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the information required by the customs authorities from legal persons applying for authorised economic status (AEO) under the Union Customs Code - in particular the tax identification numbers and the name of the responsible tax offices of certain employees of the applicant – was lawful within the ambit of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 governing the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
On 1 July 2022 the European Commission adopted a resolution enabling Member States to temporarily waive customs duties and VAT on the importation from third countries of food, blankets, tents, electric generators and other life-saving equipment destined for Ukrainians affected by the war.
In the present proceedings, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to decide whether the Commission may refuse to recognize a relocation of production solely on the ground that the relocation is intended to escape customs duties imposed in connection with a trade dispute between two States. The plaintiffs claim for the relocation of the origin of the goods (here: Harley Davidson motorcycles) was dismissed by the General Court. The ECJ as the court of last resort also rejected the grounds of appeal.
The Supreme Tax Court has upheld a Customs decision to refuse to allow transfer of a merged company’s right to manufacturing relief from its electric power duty to the surviving entity.
Following up on a preliminary request from the Hamburg Tax Court the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to decide on the place of importation for VAT purposes of a transportation vehicle purchased in Georgia which was brought into the EU in breach of customs legislation. The ECJ held the place of importation to be Germany, that is where the owner of the car resides and where the car is ultimately in use.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that a electricity distributor cannot claim a refund of the electric power tax included in irrecoverable amounts billed to customers, whether on the grounds of unfair taxation or on grounds of unequal taxation by comparison with the refund available to wholesalers of fuel oils.
In a request for a preliminary ruling from the Düsseldorf Tax Court, the European Court of Justice dealt with the interpretation of Article 3i of Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 on the import ban on certain goods from Russia listed in Annex XXI. Specifically, the case concerns the seizure by the main customs office of a used vehicle purchased in Russia and then imported into Germany.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that an Italian court order for the payment of customs duty cannot be executed in Germany if the order is insupportable as being in conflict with public policy.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the transport of sparkling wine under suspension of the due tax to another Member State is not hindered if the demand for security previously determined by the main customs office and paid by the sender does not cover the full amount of the valid state tax for sparkling wine that may arise.
In two separate but substantively related appeal proceedings for preliminary legal protection, the Supreme Tax Court held that customs authorities are not permitted to confiscate and to utilize the oil tanker “Eventin” for the time being in light of the European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia. The court sees “reasonable doubts“ as to the legitimacy of the proposed measures. It is not clear whether, despite EU sanctions, the ship and its cargo are allowed to enter and leave EU territory due to an exception applicable for emergencies.
