Judgment_paragraph 2. · Joszef Horvath v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (50/80)

2.The gravamen of the plaintiff's case in the main action before the Finanzgericht is that he did not smuggle in any heroin. The Hauptzollamt regards the facts as proved and considers that a preliminary ruling on the determination of the value for customs purposes of smuggled goods should be obtained from the Court of Justice.By an order of 15 January 1980 the Finanzgericht stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court the following questions:1. Are the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 and of Regulation (EEC) No 603/72 of the Commission of 24 March 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that, with the exception of those provisions which require goods subject to customs control to be formally presented, they also apply directly to the valuation for customs purposes of goods smuggled into the customs territory of the Community?2. Are the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council, especially Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the value for customs purposes of the goods smuggled into the customs territory of the Community is fixed with reference to the time and place of their introduction into the customs territory of the Community, even if according to the national substantive legal provisions from time to time applicable the liability to the customs arises at another time and is payable by a person other than the first buyer residing in Community territory?3. Are the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 375/69 of the Commission of 27 February 1969 and of Regulation (EEC) No 1343/75 of the Commission of 26 May 1975 to be interpreted as meaning that they apply also in the event of goods being smuggled into the customs territory of the Community with the attendant condition that any buyer subsequent to the first residing in that territory who is found to be in possession of the smuggled goods has to supply particulars of the price which he has paid so that the price paid by that person is the relevant value for customs purposes, or do the competent national authorities have to take the purchase price paid by the first buyer residing in Community territory as the basis of the value of the smuggled goods for customs purposes in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68?”

Joszef Horvath v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (50/80)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections