5.6.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 March 2010 — DP Grup EOOD v Direcktor na Agentsia ‘Mituitsi’

(Case C-138/10)

2010/C 148/25

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DP Grup

Defendant: Direcktor na Agentsia ‘Mituitsi’

Questions referred

1.

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as requiring the customs authority to carry out only an examination of the conformity of the customs declaration with the requirements of Article 62 of that regulation by merely undertaking an examination of documents to the extent specified in Article 68 of the Regulation, and to take a decision concerning acceptance of the customs declaration solely on the basis of the documents presented, where a doubt has arisen as to the correctness of the tariff code of the goods and an expert report is necessary in order to determine that code?

2.

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is the decision of the customs authority concerning immediate acceptance of the customs declaration pursuant to Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be regarded as a decision of a customs authority in accordance with Article 4(5) in conjunction with Article 8(1), first indent, of the Customs Code, and this in respect of the entire content of the customs declaration made, when at the same time the following circumstances are present:

(a)

the customs authority’s decision concerning acceptance of the customs declaration was taken solely on the basis of the documents presented together with the customs declaration;

(b)

when the required examinations were being carried out prior to acceptance of the customs declaration, the suspicion existed that the tariff code declared for the goods was not correct;

(c)

when the required examinations were being carried out prior to acceptance of the customs declaration, the information on the content of the goods declared, which is relevant for the purposes of correct determination of the tariff code, was incomplete;

(d)

during the examination prior to acceptance of the declaration, a sample was taken in order that an expert report could be drawn up for the purpose of correct determination of the tariff code of the goods?

3.

In the circumstances of the main proceedings, is Article 63 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that

(a)

it allows the lawfulness of acceptance of the customs declaration to be contested before a court after release of the goods, or that

(b)

acceptance of the customs declaration is not contestable, because it merely records the declaration of the goods to the customs authorities and determines the date on which the customs debt on importation is incurred and does not constitute a decision by the customs authority as to the correct tariff classification and the amount of duties due on the basis of that declaration?

(1)  OJ L 302, p. 1;