Case C-446/02
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
v
Gouralnik & Partner GmbH
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Inaccurate declaration – Consequences for the validity of the declaration)
Summary of the Order
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Inaccurate declaration concerning part of the product exported – Amendment of the declaration – Retention of the right to a refund – Product declared not corresponding to the product actually exported – Determination of the applicable refund rate – Similarity between the declared product and the exported product – Immaterial
(Council Regulations Nos 2913/92, Art. 78(3), and 3665/87, Arts 3(5)(a) and 11)
For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to an export refund exists at least at the rate applicable to the product actually exported where it is established during a control by the customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment did not consist entirely of the declared product but included another product to which a lower rate of refund applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code.
For the purposes of the decision, it is not material whether the goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration are goods similar to those which were in fact declared.
For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is applicable in such circumstances.
(see para. 37, operative part 1)