11.9.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/27

1.

Is the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) applicable to a case in which the customs debt was incurred and post-clearance recovery undertaken before the provision entered into force?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a EUR.1 certificate which cannot be shown actually to be incorrect because the origin of the goods for which the certificate was issued could not be ascertained upon subsequent verification, the goods being denied preferential treatment solely for that reason, an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC and, if such is not the case, can an interested party still usefully appeal against this provision?

3.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Who bears the burden of proving that the certificate is based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter or alternatively who must prove that evidently the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment?

4.

If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can an interested party usefully appeal against Article 220(2) of the CCC, introduction and indent (b), as this provision read prior to 19 December 2000, in a situation in which it cannot subsequently be ascertained whether, at the time of issue, the customs authorities had good grounds for issuing a EUR.1 certificate and were right to issue one?