Judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases Eurogate Distribution and DHL Hub Leipzig.

Article 7(3) of Sixth Council Directive must be interpreted as meaning that VAT on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in that provision at the date of their re-exportation but were removed from that arrangement as a result of their re-exportation, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, read in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since value added tax on goods which have been re-exported as non-Community goods is not due where those goods have not been removed from the customs arrangement provided for in Article 61 of that directive, and that is the case even where a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, nobody is liable for payment of the value added tax. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as not being applicable in situations relating to the repayment of value added tax.

C-226/14 and C-228/14

 

Informatiesoort: Nieuws

Rubriek: Europees belastingrecht, Omzetbelasting, Douane

H&I: Previews

3

Gerelateerde artikelen