Tempo - UCC preliminary draft delegated act - MS comments - Minutes ANNEX TO THE MINUTES. Point, letter, subparagraph

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(25) /02/25 No Subject Article Paragraph 1 Point, letter, subparagraph 0 Author Comments Conclusion d action We would like to reestablish the definition of normal residence and propose the following drafting. Normal residence means the place where a person usually lives, that is for at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal and occupational ties, or, in the case of a person with no occupational ties because of personal ties which show close links between that person and the place where she his living. However, the normal residence of a person whose occupational ties are in a different place from her personal ties are in a different place from her personal ties and who consequently lives in turn in different places situated in two or more States (one place being out of the EU) shall be regarded as being the place of her personal ties, provided that such person returns there regularly. This last condition need not be met where the person is living in the European Union in order to carry out a task of definite duration. Attendance at a university or school shall not imply transfer of normal residence. Covered by article 5(31) UCC. After certain discussion, COM proposes to insert the concept in Guidelines. Insert in Guidelines 2 No existing provision 0 Missing definition of the notion of consignor for transit issues : No The definition of consignor (box 2) for transit issues is not provided in Title I-Chapter 1 nor in the Annexes. Even in CCC, the meaning of consignor as mentioned in Annex 37 CCIP (consignor is the economic operator that acts as an exporter in cases mentioned in art 206 of CCIP) does not fit with transit regulations. proposes to add a definition for consignor in transit, and agrees on its inclusion in Title I Chapter I or in DIH annexes : consignor for transit : the person on whose behalf the transit declaration is made and who is the owner of the goods or has a similar right a disposal (including physically) at the time when the declaration is accepted. All details concerning data requirements in the context of declarations and notifications should be included in Annex B. This question can be considered for the preparation of annex B revision 4. 3 No existing provision 0 We believe that it should be necessary to have a definition of main accounts for customs purposes as article DA-I-2-09a indent 2 does not give enough information to determine what could be those main accounts for customs purposes. This expression is equivalent to that used today in the AEO provisions (see article 14c CCIP), so COM thinks no definition is needed. 4 (general) 0 5 a new definition 0 6 a new definition 0 In some points of this Article one of inverted commas is missing (i.e. in points 13, 46 and 48) in some other inverted commas are different from those used in other points (i.e. in points 8, 9, 31, 47, 49, 64 and 73). Definition of a single authorization is missing. In our opinion this definition is necessary to identify the type of requested authorization because the following term involving more than one Member State does not allow to establish precisely what kind of elements connected with the application of the special procedure it covers and which elements are not treated as involving customs authorities. For example, if the customs office of discharge is in Member State A and all other actions concerning use of the special procedure are performed in Member State B does it mean that in this case we have authorization involving more than one Member State. We see necessity to introduce a definition of the holder of the authorisation. In the context of document concerning BPMs for INFs (High Level and Business Requirement BPM Report SC14-RfA105 DLV (6) dated ) we have noticed the following definition: Holder of the Authorisation (Holder of the decision) - Holder of the decision means a person on whom a decision has legal effects (Art. (41)) or to whom the rights and obligations have been transferred. In our opinion there is no legal basis to transfer the rights and obligations of the holder of the authorisation because Article 218 UCC allows only transfer of the rights and obligations of the holder of the procedure, not of the holder of the authorisation. Such definition will be needed in the context on Annex A which refers to decisions and authorisations. Therefore, we propose to add the following definition of the holder of the authorization : Holder of the authorization means the person to whom an authorization has been granted". Definition is not necessary. Yes, in this case we have an authorization involving more than one Member State. BPMs are not legal binding. They are supporting documents. Thus, the definition may be valid in the context of interpreting the BPMs but will not have any legal effect. Nevertheless, this point will be revised. Regarding the definition proposed, it is already covered by the definition of "holder of the decision" in number 36. After some discussion, COM accepts to insert a definition of "holder of the authorisation". 7 TITLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1 (110-) 2, 3, & 4 2 Proposed Abbreviations: AEOC instead of AEOc AEOS instead of AEOs AEOF instead of AEOf Capital letters are already used 8 DA I 1 7 Istambul should be corrected to Istanbul No. 7 and 9 9 def. 7 See Conclusion #8 7 Istambul should be Istanbul and 9 10 See Conclusion #8 7 The word Istambul should be replaced with the word Istanbul. (7) 11 (7) 7 The reference to the eata carnet can be deleted. During the discussion of the second draft in of the DA in September Delete 24 the reference to the eata in Title III was deleted. 11a (7) 7 Should read Istanbul not Istambul See Conclusion #8 1 / 13

2 12 Title I, Chapter 1, point 9 9 The definition 'Istanbul Convention' exists either in point 9 or in point 38. We would prefer to retain it as in point 38 because in point 9 Istambul is written wrong and the repetition should be removed. Indeed Delete (n 9) 9 It seems that this definition is redundant with definition 38. See Conclusion #12 Delete (9) 15 (9) 9 9 The word Istambul should be replaced with the word Istanbul (two times). 1. Typo Istambul should be Istanbul. 2. In point 38 an identical definition is mentioned. See Conclusion #8 1. See Conclusion #8 2. See Conclusion # Delete Title I, Chapter See Conclusion #8 9 Typo Istambul should read Istanbul Istanbul instead of Istambul. See Conclusion #8 17a.9 9 As at Definition 7 above See Conclusion #8 18 Points 9 and 38 9 Istanbul Convention in point 38 there is the same definition as in point 9. See Conclusion #12 Delete DA-1-1- Definition 10 baggage (11) At the discussions about DA-V-2-06 at the October Workshop, it was decided to remove the provision preventing a customs representative from making an oral customs declaration. Our difficulty with this is that by removing this provision, it allows a customs representative to make an oral customs declaration for baggage. Perhaps a way of preventing this would be to change the definition of baggage to something like.. Baggage means all goods carried by whatever means by a traveller in relation to a journey. During the first phase of review cycle it was discussed and agreed that this definition of carrier in the context of customs status of goods is not necessary and, consequently, that it would be deleted. We agree with this conclusion. We do not see any added value in such definition since the definitions of carrier in Article 5 (40) UCC are enough. Not necessary. To be noted that in case of customs representation, Article 19 UCC applies The definition of carrier has been deleted in line with the conclusions of the first review cycle. Definition n 14: ''Convention on a common transit procedure'' In order to be aligned with the definitions n 8 ''ATA Convention'', n 9 and 45 ''Istanbul Convention'' and n 68 ''TIR Convention'', the definition n 14 ''Convention on a common transit procedure'' should be replaced by the following: «'Convention on a common transit procedure' means the Convention between the European Union, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation on a common transit procedure done at Interlaken on 20 May 1987 as approved by the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987;». COM agrees to align this definition with other definitions used for other Conventions as for example ATA Convention. Align definitiones of Conventions. 21 (n 14) 14 1/ As for other international Conventions (''ATA Convention'', ''Istanbul Convention'' and ''TIR Convention''), the list of contracting parties should not be detailed here as it could evolve. It is also confusing to list all the first contracting parties as some of them became EU Member States (AT, FI, SW). Finally, Turkey is a contracting party since 1st December 22. 2/ If kept, the term ''European Economic Community'' should be used instead of ''European Union''. 3/ The reference to the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987 is never used. Moreover, for the other international Conventions (''ATA Convention'', ''Istanbul Convention'' and ''TIR Convention'') only the date of signature of the convention is taken into account. NB: the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987 could not be found on EUR-Lex (''The page you are looking for was moved or doesn't exist anymore.''). 22 (14) 14 Although correct the definition of the Convention on a common transit procedure will give rise to misunderstandings. The reference to countries that are currently part of the Union (Austria, Sweden and Finland) may give some confusion. We suggest to amend the text as follows: Convention on a common transit procedure as approved by Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987; See Conclusion #21 Align definitiones of Conventions Title I, Chapter 1-14 and 15. Art. points 14 and In both definition 14 and 15 Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden should be excluded as they are part of the EU. Also Turkey is a party to the Convention and should be included. Although we fully understand that from the legal point of view the proposed definition for the 'Convention on a common transit procedure' is correct but we would prefer the definition that mirrors current state of the Convection. Instead of mentioning of Contracting Parties to the Convention the definition could be similar to the definition of the 'TIR Convention'. See Conclusion #21 See Conclusion #21 Align definitiones of Conventions. Align definitiones of Conventions. 2 / 13

3 25 Art, # As the definition of Convention on a common transit procedure is included in number 14, a reference to this Convention should be sufficient and there is no need to repeat again the definition of this Convention. We propose to redraft # 15 as follows: Common transit country means any country, other than a Member State of the Union that is a contracting party to the Convention on a common transit procedure. Definition n 15: ''Common transit country'' The definition n 15 ''Common transit country'' should be replaced by the following: «'common transit country' means any country, other than a Member State of the European Union, that has acceded to the Convention on a common transit procedure that is a contracting party of the Convention between the European Union, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation on a common transit procedure as approved by the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987;». See Conclusion #25 26 (n 15) 15 1/ As for other international Conventions (''ATA Convention'', ''Istanbul Convention'' and ''TIR Convention''), the list of contracting parties should not be detailed here as it could evolve. It is also confusing to list all the first contracting parties as some of them became EU Member States (AT, FI, SW). Finally, Turkey is a contracting party since 1st December 22. 2/ If kept, the term ''European Economic Community'' should be used instead of ''European Union''. 3/ The reference to the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987 is never used. Moreover, for the other international Conventions (''ATA Convention'', ''Istanbul Convention'' and ''TIR Convention'') only the date of signature of the convention is taken into account. NB: the Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987 could not be found on EUR-Lex (''The page you are looking for was moved or doesn't exist anymore.''). 4/ There is no need to detail here the Convention on a common transit procedure as it is defined above (definition n 14). 27 (15) 15 Taking into account that the 'Convention on a common transit procedure' is defined in point 14 above, the definition of the 'common transit country' could be shortened as follows: 'common transit country' means any country, other than a Member State of the Union that is a contracting party of the Convention on a common transit procedure. See Conclusion #25 28 (15) 15 See our comment to point 14. We suggest to amend the text as follows: common transit country' means any country, other than a Member State of the Union that is a contracting party of the Convention on a common transit procedure as approved by Council Decision 87/415/EEC of 15 June 1987; See Conclusion #25 29 (16) (20) 20 As the definition of country would be applied in the context of the origin of goods only, it seems to be reasonable to move it to Title II (GSP and ATM). Taking into account that this definition doesn t contain the term Combined Nomenclature, which is used in other definitions, we suggest rephrasing it as follows (see Article 56(2)(a) of the UCC): 'customs nomenclature' means the Combined Nomenclature of goods as laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 any other nomenclature referred to in Article 56(2) (b) of the Code; The approach was to keep all definition in this article, regardless of its scope. This concept is only used in one article. Thus it will be transferred to article DA-I On the other hand. The amendment proposed does not change the meaning. COM would prefer to keep the current wording. Move to DA-I (20) 20 According to the APO on TEMPO 28 of the first draft COM would change something in the text. See Conclusion #30 Transfer to article DA-I-2-23 After discussion, COM will study the possibility to amend the definition in Study the possibility to amend order to cover both situations, the office where goods and information are the definition. presented and the office where those must be presented following the declaration lodged. 32a Art. point 22 Art. point Definition of the 'customs office of destination' should reflect two situations in transit: declared customs office of destination and actual customs office of destination (after diversion). The proposed definition focuses only on the last one. The amended definition does not refer to needs of enquiry procedure - a customs office of destination is the customs office where goods had to be presented but this hasn t been done. We propose amending the definition as follows: 'customs office of destination' means the customs office where the goods placed under a transit procedure and the required information must be presented or are presented in order to end the procedure; On the other hand, YY asks to substitute the expression "end the procedure" by "discharge the precedure". See Conclusion #32 Study the possibility to amend the definition. 33 (22) 22 During the first phase of review cycle we presented the following comment to this definition of customs office of destination : «In this definition of customs office of destination we suggest the replacement of the expression must be presented with are presented in order to cover the cases of diversion where the actual customs office of destination is not the one indicated in the transit customs declaration. The expression must be presented limits this notion to the customs office of destination indicated in the transit customs declaration.» We thought the COM and other Member States agreed with this proposal, consequently we reiterate our suggestion of replacing the expression must be presented with are presented. The proposal was accepted on the 1st review cycle and it was changed in this 2nd preliminary draft. 3 / 13

4 33a (23) 23 suggests using the definition at 17 and amend Definition 23 to read transport carrying the goods arrives in the customs territory of the Union from a Third Country COM explains that the use of "Third Country" may imply a narrower concept as it does not include international waters. COM will study the change proposed. 34 (24) We believe this definition of customs office of exit in the context of the export declaration should be deleted and its content should be transferred to Title VIII of UCC-IA. First, the COM empowerment to create rules for the determination of the customs office of exit is based on Article 161, point (a), UCC, i.e., it s an empowerment through a conferral of implementing powers and consequently it should be done in the UCC-IA. Second, the content of this definition doesn t define the customs office of exit but, in reality, establishes the rules for the determination of the customs office of exit. Moreover, the content doesn t take into account other cases where the customs office of exit is not the last customs office before the goods leave the customs territory of the Union, such as the cases of self-assessment foreseen in Article DA-V-2-23a (1), point (b), or the cases of export followed by transit. Third, since the empowerment in question [Article 161 (a) UCC] is for the COM to specify the procedural rules for determining the customs offices of exit and since the different rules lead to different processes in the export formalities, we believe it is better to regulate this issue (determination of the customs office of exit in the context of export customs declarations and re-export declarations) within Chapter 2 of Title VIII of UCC-IA and not through a definition. Please see our comments and proposals regarding Title VIII of UCC-IA. COM will present a new definition of the concept following the discussion the definition held on Title VIII. A discussion regarding the place where to insert the definition takes place: some MS think it shall be kept in Title I as the concepto is not only used in Title VIII. Some other think that by moving the definition to Chapter 2 of Title VIII (Formalities on exit of goods) the same concept may be used in other fields of the legislation, namely special procedures. 35 Title I, Chapter 1, point 24 The definition of customs office of exit in point 24, letter (b) does not cover the cases when the goods leave the customs territory of the Union by postal traffic. We consider this definition must refer to the cases where the goods will be taken out of the customs territory of the Union by post. See Conclusion # 34. As regards post, it is the means of transport which has to be considered (air, rail ) and post is not a means of transport 36 Definition No. 24. 'customs office of exit' In spite of the APO provided by COM ( The insertion of "first" is rather unnecessary. Implicitly covered by the definition ) the same problem was raised by TCG at the meeting held on 7-9 July 24 in Genval. Therefore, we reiterate our comment made during the previous review cycle, so we propose amending the first paragraph as follows: 'customs office of exit' means, in the context of the export, re-export declaration or TIR operations, the last customs office before the goods are first taken out of the customs territory of the Union for a destination outside that territory. The addition of first as indicated above would be helpful to clarify the following situation: Goods are exported e.g. from Hungary and destined e.g. to Egypt carried by a vessel moving on the Danube from Budapest leaving the EU customs territory at the Hungarian/Serbian inland waterway border crossing point at Mohács for the first time, transiting Serbia, then returning to EU customs territory (i.e. Romania) and repeatedly leaving the EU customs territory (Romania) via the Black sea to Egypt. With our insertion as suggested above it would be clear that the customs office of Mohács is the customs office of exit and not the Romanian customs office at the Black Sea. ) COM will have the example of the comment into account when redrafting the definition. the definition 37 (24) We suggest replacing the words that place in point b of second sub-paragraph with the words the place where the goods are loaded onto the vessel, aircraft or train (see point 25). In our view, it should be considered whether or not this definition should cover cases referred to in Article 269(3) of the Code. If yes, this definition should be supplemented with corresponding provisions covering those cases. See Conclusion #34 the definition 38 (24) 1. In Title VIII a discussion will take place concerning the Single Transport Contract in relation to Self-assessment. Depending on the outcome of this discussion the definition of the office of exit in the context of export and re-export should be amended accordingly. 2. According to the APO on TEMPO 32 of the first draft the Commission should consider the reference to postal consignments in this point. What is the outcome of the consideration? 1. Correct. See Conclusion # See Conclusion # the definition Art. point 24 Art, # 24 (b) and # 25 2nd paragraph The reference to the TIR operations in the definition of the customs office of exit should be reconsidered, after the discussion on title VIII. We propose to align both texts. 2nd paragraph of # 25 in clearer than 24 b). We propose to repeat the drafting of 2nd paragraph of # 25 in # 24 b) Reference to TIR operations will be deleted. See Conclusion # 34 the definition 40a 40b (24) (24) suggests that are taken out of the customs territory of the Union for a destination outside that territory. should read.. are taken out of the Union for a Third Country destination Should the definition at (b) include postal for STC scenarios The concept of Third Country excludes international waters and some export have those waters as a destiny. See Conclusion # 34 the definition 4 / 13

5 1) This definition does not refer to specific cases when goods are leaving the customs territory of the Union by post and railway. Does it mean that it is intended to apply general rules in such cases? Why this definition doesn t include railway and postal mode of transport using a single transport contract, as it is established in the article 793 (2) (b)? Such situation leads to disproportionate administrative and financial burdens supervising and closing the export procedure for railway and postal cargoes. 1. In general: see Conclusion # 34. For post, see Conclusion # See Conclusion #39 1. the definition 2. 40c (24) 2) To clarify a situation with using a definition customs office of exit for the TIR procedure needs we propose adding a new sentence to this point: 'customs office of exit' means, in the context of the export, re-export declaration or TIR operations, the last customs office before the goods are taken out of the customs territory of the Union for a destination outside that territory. However: (a) in the case of goods taken out of the customs territory of the Union by pipeline and cable for electrical energy, 'customs office of exit' means the customs office of export; or (b) where the goods are loaded on the vessel, aircraft or train on which they will be taken out of the customs territory of the Union by air, sea or rail,, 'customs office of exit' means the customs office competent for that place; In the context of the TIR operations a customs office of exit is also a customs office of destination. 41 (n 25) 25 Definition n 25 : In accordance with article IA-VIII-2- a), the customs office of departure of the transit procedure shall act as the customs office of exit under some conditions. 1. Then, the definition of customs office of exit shall take into account those provisions with adding this mention : In the specific context of an export declaration followed by a transit procedure and subject to the conditions mentioned in article IA-VIII-2- a), customs office of exit means the customs office of departure where the customs declaration placing goods under a transit procedure is accepted. See Conclusion # 34 the definition 42 (25) 25 In our opinion the office of exit in the context of the exit summary declaration is always the place where the goods physical leave the customs territory of the Union. In the example of goods loaded in on a non regular shipping service that brings the goods to another Union port, the port of should always be the customs office of exit, regardless if the vessel leaves the territorial waters. Otherwise it would be impossible for the office responsible for the port of to determine for each container if the goods leave the customs territory of the Union or not. See Conclusion # 34 the definition Furthermore we are not in favour of two different definitions of customs office of exit. We suggest to merge this definition with point (24). 43 (25) 25 We believe this definition of customs office of exit in the context of the exit summary declaration or re-export notification should be deleted and its content should be transferred to Title VIII of UCC-IA. First, the COM empowerment to create rules for the determination of the customs office of exit is based on Article 161, point (a), UCC, i.e., it s an empowerment through a conferral of implementing powers and consequently it should be done in the UCC-IA. Second, the content of this definition is not correct, namely for the cases of re-exportation of non-union goods from temporary storage or from a free zone, regarding the customs office where the exit summary declaration (EXS) or, if the EXS is waived, the re-export notification needs to be lodged. That office needs to be the customs office competent for the place where the goods are in temporary storage or in the free zone and it may not be the last customs office in the customs territory of the Union or, in maritime traffic, the customs office where the goods are loaded onto the vessel on which they will be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union. For example: non-eu goods in temporary storage in Felixstowe; if the goods are to be re-exported and are loaded in a non-rss vessel (non Regular Shipping Service vessel) and transhipped in Rotterdam into a vessel that is going to transport them to the US, an EXS or, if the EXS is waived, an re-export notification needs to be lodged in Felixstowe in order to close the temporary storage. The second subparagraph of the definition by using the expression vessel or aircraft on which they will be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union will not allow Felixstowe to be the customs office of exit where the EXS or re-export notification needs to be lodged. Third, since the empowerment in question [Article 161 (a) UCC] is for the COM to specify the procedural rules for determining the customs offices of exit and since the specificities of the cases in question may lead to different rules, we believe it is better to regulate this issue (determination of the customs office of exit in the context of exit summary declaration or re-export notification) within Chapters 4 and 5 of Title VIII of UCC-IA and not through a definition. Please see our comments and proposals regarding Title VIII of UCC-IA. See Conclusion # 34 the definition 44 (26) 26 We have doubts whether the phrase designated by the customs authorities in accordance with the customs legislation is necessary in this definition, as other definition of various customs offices do not contain such a phrase. In our view, it should be considered whether or not this definition should cover cases referred to in Article 269(3) of the Code. If yes, the words the formalities for placing them under the export procedure could be replaced with the words the formalities concerning the export customs declaration. 1. The words 'designated legislation' should indeed be removed 2. COM agrees 1. the text 2. 5 / 13

6 45 (26) 26 During the first phase of review cycle we presented the following comment to this definition of customs office of export : «In the fourth line of the definition the expression re-export notification should be replaced with re-export declaration..» Other Member States made similar proposals and we believe it was agreed by COM. Consequently we reiterate our suggestion of replacing the expression re-export notification with re-export declaration. The proposal was accepted on the 1st review cycle and it was changed in this 2nd preliminary draft. considers that an articulation between centralised clearance and special procedures should be foreseen in IA and DA. Otherwise, the UCC will contain the same gap as the CCC. The notions of customs office of supervision within a CC authorisation and customs office of placement under a special procedure should take be articulated with each other. Does not seem necessary. The supervising customs office for special procedures and the supervising customs office for CC follow the same rule (Article 22(1), 3rd subparagraph UCC. 46 (n 28) 28 In the scope of centralised clearance, the customs office of placement under a special procedure (SP) may be the customs office of supervision in which the declaration shall be lodged, but may also be the customs office of presentation, in which case it will only have access to the declaration that will be lodged near the supervising customs office. Therefore, propose to add a disposition to the proposed definition of customs office of placement : customs office of placement' means any customs office indicated in the authorisation for a special procedure as referred to in Article 211(1) of the Code, empowered to release goods for a special procedure. However, in case of centralised clearance, the customs office of placement is either the one which receives the declaration of placement - and, as a consequence, the one empowered to release goods - or the one which has access to the declaration". 47 DA I 1 No. 29 (new 29 In case of transit procedures from MS to MS via a common transit country there are customs offices of transit as well. For example for transports between and YY via ZZ there is a customs office of transit at the frontiers between and ZZ as well as ZZ and YY. Therefore we propose to delete under letter a) the customs office competent for the point of exit from the customs territory of the Union when the consignment is leaving that territory in the course of a transit operation via a frontier with a territory outside the customs territory of the Union other than a common transit country ( ). The definitions covers the described case of a movement from via ZZ to YY.(offices of transit would be at entry in ZZ according to the transit Convention and at entry in YY according to the DA definition). As the conept is only used in the IA, it will be moved. Move to IA a (29) (deleted) (29) (29) (30) 30 The definition of customs office of import has been deleted, however, it is used in Article DA-VI-2-02(3)(a) which then should be adjusted accordingly. We suggest replacing the words in point a when the consignment is leaving with the words when the goods are leaving, as both in point b and in other definitions of various customs offices the goods but not the consignment are referred to. 29 When mentioning a territory outside the territory of the Union the definition at 17 should be considered i.e Third Country In our opinion the text or vice-versa is superfluous. In point 37 the situation of vice-versa (introduction) is already mentioned. 51 (31) 31 According to the APO on TEMPO 52 a reference to Article 6(1) of the Code should be added We fear the proposed definition of electronic data-processing techniques doesn t cover one of the meanings of dataprocessing techniques foreseen in the CCIP, in particular the one foreseen in Article 4a (1), second sub-paragraph, first indent, point (b): the introduction of information required for completion of the formalities concerned into customs dataprocessing systems. We believe this meaning must be maintained since it is the one that covers the fulfilment of formalities online in the customs authorities website. In these cases there isn t a computer-to-computer interchange or transfer of structured data but an introduction of the data by the declarant into the customs data-processing systems. Correct. Article DA-VI-2-03(3)(a) should refer to 'the customs office where the customs declaration for release for free circulation is lodged' as in Article IA- VI-2-(1) d COM explains that the use of "Third Country" may imply a narrower concept COM will study the change as it does not include international waters. proposed. Delete "or vice-versa" in points 30 and 37. Add reference to article 6(1) UCC 6 / 13

7 52a 31 suggests that by agreed strictly formatted would read easier as standardised messages. Thus the definition will be as follows: electronic data-processing techniques means computerized processing of data for instance by means of electronic data interchange (EDI) or other standards supporting computer-tocomputer interchange or transfer of structured data by standard messages from one computer system to another without human intervention, or the online introduction of data required (for completion of the formalities) into customs dataprocessing systems 53 (point without a number, between points 33 and 34) 34 Primarily: In accordance with our proposal from July (our of 7 July 24), we propose this point to read as follows: 'exporter' means (a) the person established in the customs territory of the Union who holds the contract of the sale, leasing, processing or of another similar contract of the goods to be exported with the consignee established outside the customs territory of the Union, (b) the holder of a special procedure where the goods are to be placed under the outward processing procedure or where the goods placed under a special procedure are to be exported or re-exported, (c) the private individual carrying or sending the goods to be exported where these goods are contained in the private individual s personal luggage or in the consignment sent by one private individual to another, (d) in other cases than those referred to in points (a) to (c), the person who takes the decision that the goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union. Grounds: In the exports where there are no persons established in the customs territory of the Union involved, it should be possible for a person to act as an exporter although the one is not established in the EU. The first example: If a Swiss company sells the goods to an Egyptian byer and the goods are located in Germany, the Swiss seller is the exporter. The second example: A tourist from Ukraine buys a lot of goods (in several different shops) in Hungary and the officer at the frontier says that this action is commercial and accordingly, asks the tourist to make an export declaration. The exporter can be only the tourist himself again a person established outside the EU. Remark: During the years, at numerous Union level meetings, there has been a lot of discussion on which are the (minimum) criteria for a person s establishment in the EU. This is still an unsolved question, but according to our understanding, e.g. a bare VAT number is not sufficient to form the establishment in the EU. Naturally, if the criteria could be less stringent at export than at import, it would at export to a certain extent ease the pain but from the legal point of view, we are afraid that this kind of inconsistency in the interpretation of the same term is not allowed. In addition, among others, the use of comprehensive guarantee provides the establishment in the EU. Secondarily: In the wording proposed by the Commission, the words in other cases are superfluous if the purpose really is to have only one single definition for the exporter (excluding the however definition after the main definition). If this is the case, we are against this solution (cf. the grounds for our primary proposal). Some discussion takes place after COM's APO is presented. Discussion questions whether cases of travellers taking the goods out of the customs territory of the Union by themselves are covered by the definition proposed. Some MS also think that an exporter shall be established in the customs territory of the Union. COM will present a new draft definition in December the definition 54 Title I, Chapter 1, missing point 34 exporter Technical remark: Missing numbering of definition for exporter. We suggest to add point 34 in the definition of exporter and to change the numbering bellow. 2. In the first sentence the expression in other cases must be deleted, because it makes sense in the previous draft of the definition. 3. We consider the expression.who takes the decision that... is very vague and general and we need a clarification how customs authorities verify person took decision, what is the act of taking a decision. We consider that taking a decision is associated with declarative process, respectively with the provisions for the declaring as well as the definition in Article 5 (15) and (35) of UCC. 4. The last subparagraph is too restrictive and should be redrafted. We consider that in the context of outward processing, an exporter could be also other person, not only the person who brings the goods out of the customs territory of the Union. 1. Change numbering 2 to 4. See Conclusion # 53 the definition 7 / 13

8 55 Art. Nr Definition Exporter I. Please check the numeration. There exists no number for the definition exporter. It must be Nr. 34. II. We support the deletion of letter b), but we are against the deletion of letter a) and c). Letter a) is necessary to clarify in general who is the exporter in cases where a contract exists and the person who takes the decision is not established in the customs territory of the Union. Letter c) is necessary in cases where a private individual not established in the customs territory of the Union is the exporter. Letter d) is necessary for cases where no contract exists or where such contract exits but both involved persons are established outside of the customs territory of the Union. This is in any other case. All these cases are also sufficient in the context of outward processing and the last sentence can be deleted. We propose the following text: 'exporter' means (a) the person established in the customs territory of the Union who holds the contract of the sale, leasing, processing or of another similar contract of the goods to be exported with the consignee established outside the customs territory of the Union, (b) the private individual carrying or sending the goods of a non-commercial nature to be exported, (c) in other cases the person established in the customs territory of the Union who takes the decision that the goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union. I. See Conclusion # 54 (point 1) II. See Conclusion # 53 the definition 56 Definition No. 34. exporter 34 In the definition of exporter, we do not accept that it completely excludes persons established outside the customs territory of the Union to act as an exporter. During the discussion at the meeting held on June 24 in Genval, several situations were identified where persons established outside the customs territory of the Union should be considered as exporters. Furthermore, in the first paragraph, the text in other cases is no longer valid, as points a) to c) are deleted. Typo: serial number 34. is missing before exporter See Conclusion # 53 the definition 57 (34?) 34 It isn t clear why the reference to the private individual sending the goods of a non-commercial nature or carrying such goods contained in traveller's personal baggage has been deleted, taking into account that such private individual can often be the person not established in the customs territory of the Union. It isn t clear as well why in the context of outward processing the exporter should be the person who brings the goods out of the customs territory of the Union (i.e. the carrier) but not e.g. the holder of authorisation for outward processing. The words in other cases in the first sub-paragraph should be deleted. The number of point containing the definition of 'exporter', which has been deleted, should be reinserted and the numbering of following points should be corrected accordingly. 1. See Conclusion # See Conclusion # 54 (point 1) the definition 58 (?) Exporter In the definition for the exporter the number is missing. 2. According to the first draft the definition of exporter is cut down to the bone. In the current version it s unclear who will be the exporter when goods are sold ex work and the buyer is not established in the customs territory of the Union. In Regulation 428/2009 concerning dual-use goods a definition of exporter is mentioned in Article 2 (3). According to the last subparagraph of this point the exporter shall be considered to be the contracting party established in the Union where the benefit of the right to dispose of the goods belongs to a person established outside the Union pursuant to the contract on which the export is based. We prefer the definition of exporter as mentioned in the first draft. If the Commission does not agree, we suggest to add a similar provision as mentioned in Article 2(3) of Regulation 428/2009 to this definition. 1. See Conclusion #54(1) 2. See Conclusion # 53 the definition 3. In our opinion the exporter in the context of outward processing should be the holder of the authorisation for outward processing. 59 Nr. 34 (?) 34 Definition of exporter: We prefer and suggest to keep the previous proposal (covered by letters a, c, d, and e) however, without letter b), because there is no need to provide specific rules for special procedures, as all cases should be covered by the general rules for export. See Conclusion # 53 the definition 60 DA-1-1- Exporter 34 This definition is not numbered. The phrase in other cases must be removed as it does not make sense. We would welcome clarification regarding why this definition has been changed. It is not clear from this definition exactly who is responsible and makes no provision for ex-works sales where the decision to bring the goods outside the Union is made by a person outside the Union. We prefer the existing provisions contained in Article 788 of the CCIP whereby the exporter is defined as the person on whose behalf the export declaration is made and who is the owner of the goods or has a similar right of disposal over the goods at the time when the declaration is accepted. Further provision is also necessary to make provision for the exporter to be the contracting party in the Union in the case of Ex-works sales. 1. See Conclusion #54 (point 1) 2. See Conclusion #53 the definition 61 'exporter' 34 No number. suggest a deletion of in other cases. The person established in the customs territory of the Union who takes the decision that the goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union in other cases. 1. See Conclusion #54(1) 2. See Conclusion #53 the definition 8 / 13

9 62 Art. ex-point 37 ex 37 The expression in other cases should be deleted at the end of the definition of exporter, the number of the point for this definition is missing. The definition of exporter should cover also entities not established in the customs territory of the Union. Current provisions give such possibility and in we have such situations. Sometimes sellers of the goods (entities established in the customs territory of the Union) are not interested in being an exporter. We allow entities from the third country (buyer of the goods e.g. Ukrainian entity) to be declared in the customs declaration as exporters under condition that they are represented by the customs agent acting as direct representative. Lack of such possibilities in the new provisions would cause serious problems for our business transactions. Please clarify why the part concerning special procedures was deleted (point b). See Conclusion #53 the definition 63 Point ex 37 - Exporter ex The words in other cases at the end of first paragraph shall be deleted. 2. We propose keeping ex point (c) the private individual carrying or sending the goods of a non-commercial nature to be exported where these goods are contained in traveller's personal luggage or in the consignment sent by one private individual to another See Conclusion # 53 the definition 63a Point ex 37 - Exporter ex 37 The definition of exporter needs to be numbered If the terms of sale (Incoterms) are ex-works how does this definition apply? The person arranging the export could be a party based outside of the Union such as an AEO. At the time of sale the Seller may not even know the goods are to be exported, yet the definition creates a liability even when goods are sold ex-works on the Seller. Alternatively, would suggest retaining the current definition 1. See Conclusion # 54 (1) 2. See Conclusion # 53 the definition 63b Point ex 37 - Exporter ex 37 This point is without a number (34?). To clarify the definition we propose deleting the last words- in other cases - in the first sentence of this point. 'exporter' means the person established in the customs territory of the Union who takes the decision that the goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Union in other cases. See Conclusion #53(1) and (2) the definition 64 (34) 34 The definition for GAAP is currently located in paragraph 1 of Annex 24 of the CCIP. Could you please inform us if the second paragraph of Annex 24 will return in a new article of the delegated act or will it be included in guidelines? 64a (35) 35 Necessary to define, explain term occasional for common understanding of criteria to set to occasional nature (37) a DA I 1 No. 38 (38) Definition No. 40. Master Reference Number (40) Point 40 ( ex 45) This point defines 'holder of the decision' however throughout the acts the wording holder of the authorisation is used, which is not defined. Both should be defined. In our opinion the text or vice-versa is superfluous. In point 30 the situation of vice-versa (dispatch) is already mentioned. 38 The Definition ex works price was deleted which is necessary for customs value. Could you please explain the reason? 38 This point should be deleted taking into account that point 9 of the same Article already contains the definition of 'Istanbul Convention'. 38 This definition of Istanbul Convention is a repetition of the definition foreseen in point (9) of this article. 39..or requirements to which repayment should read.. or requirements for which repayment Linguistic comment declarationsor. Typo: declarationsor Remark: If the new meaning of MRN is Master Reference Number then the Convention on a common transit procedure needs to be amended accordingly. This definition does not cover proofs of Union status which are to be endorsed by the competent customs office by by communicating the Master Reference Number (MRN) (see Article IA-V-1-10(1)).Typo: declarationsor. We think that definition 34 already covers the issue. The current second paragraph of Annex 24 to the CCIP can be reproduced in guidelines, if needed The term is used in its ordinary meaning as opposed to regular. See conclusion #6 See Conclusion #50 This term is not used in customs valuation. On the other hand, the definition 'ex works price' is a definition necessary for Non-preferential origin. The definition will be part of the introductory notes to Annex 22-. See Conclusion #12 Delete 38 See Conclusion #12 Delete 38 OK New text proposal: >40. 'Master Reference Number' (MRN) means the registration number allocated by the competent customs authority to declarations or notifications referred to in points (9) to (14) of Article 5 of the Code or for proofs of Union status;> See Conclusion #70 Delete "or vice-versa" in points 30 and 37 insert the definition in the Annex 22- relating to Non Preferential Origin typo to be corrrected and consider adding > of Article 5 of the Code or for proofs of Union status>. 72a Point 40 ( ex 45) 40 Inserted wording requires spacing between declarations or See Conclusion #70 9 / 13

10 73 (44) ex 44 During the first phase of review cycle we presented the following comment to this definition of Master Reference Number (MRN) : «We believe the definition of Master Reference Number (MRN) needs to be redrafted since the proposed text does not cover the declaration for temporary storage and the re-export declaration. On the other hand, we do not understand why the MRN is limited to cases where electronic data processing techniques (EDPT) are used. If the MRN is a registration number and if in some cases these declarations can be lodged without the use of EDPT, shouldn t an MRN be allocated also in those cases?.» We thought the COM and other Member States agreed with this proposal, consequently we reiterate our comment To comply with the suggestion, a reference to numbers 9 to 14 of article 5 UCC has been included (particularly, numbers 11 and 13 make reference to the proposal). The definition does not discriminate now between the use of EDPT or not. PT suggest to substitute the reference to the articles and proof of status with a reference to Annex B-DA. COM will study PT's proposal 74 (41) 41 We propose the following addition in this definition (in bold italics): period for discharge means the time by which goods placed under a special procedure, except transit and storage, unless the time-limit for discharge is set in accordance with Article 238(2) of the Union Customs Code, or processed products must be placed Storage consists of customs warehousing and free zones and also belongs to the category of special procedures. There is no time limit to the length of time which goods may remain under a storage procedure except in exceptional circumstances. This should be taken into account in the definition, as well. The period referred to in A 238(2) UCC is not a period for discharge (41) In our view, instead of two similar phrases the time by which and the period within which contained in first and second sentences of this definition a single phrase, which is more appropriate, should be used in both places. In the third line of this definition of period of discharge we believe the expression must have been taken out of the customs territory of the Union should be replaced with must be re-exported. The holder of the special procedure authorisation cannot control the moment when the goods are physically taken out of the customs territory of the Union. COM agrees COM prefers not to change wording because its in line with A 215(1) UCC a 79 definition 42 (43) (43) Art. Nr Use of the term equipment" in CN is wider, for example sections XV (73, 83), (94, 95, 96), I (99). Definition covers only sections XVI, XVII and XVIII. Is it intentional? 43 We have doubts whether this definition is necessary, as it isn t used in the draft DA and is used only once in the draft IA Narrowed definition of the concept. In accordance to The Universal Postal Union Convention definition of term correspondence (for ex. letters) also is postal consignment -subject to customs control. All consignments from third countries are subject to customs control also small packets not included in this definition. No. 45 normal residence : Why has the definition been deleted? From the customs point of duty relief it makes sense to define normal residence. The definition proposed is the same as that in article 43(a) CCIP. As follows from discussions on Title V (2nd review cycle), the term will be used in the DA The rules applicable to postal consignements and items of correspondence are different which justifies that definition Covered by article 5(31) UCC 80 TITLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1, Definition The following sentence: Attendance at a university or school shall not imply transfer of normal residence, should be added in the end of the Definition 45 in order to be in compliance with the Council Directive 2009/55/EC of 25 May 2009 on tax exemptions applicable to the permanent introduction from a Member State of the personal property of individuals The Directive mentioned apply only to the introduction of personal property from one Member State to another Member State. Thus it is outside of the scope of the customs legislation. 80a Art. Nr (46) ex Point ex 46 Normal residence 45 Definition states printer matter whereas printed matter is more applicable? ex 46 Please, do not delete the definition of normal residence. A common European definition is needed at least in the context of temporary admission and duty reliefs. We propose keeping definition of normal residence and also adding definition of habitual residence since both expressions are used in Articles DA-VII-4-11 and DA-VII Please clarify the difference between normal and habitual residence. Se Conclusion #79 Se Conclusion #79. On the other hand, consistency of the terms shall be ensured. COM will substitute the text "normal residence" by "habitual residence" throughout the text. Ensure consistency The reference to Article 233(2)(c) of the UCC should be replaced with the reference to Article 223(2)(c). (48) 84 (48) 48 The reference to Article 233(2)(c) should be amended in a reference to Article 223(2)(c) See Conclusion # would prefer if the article number referred to in the definition is changed from 233 to referred to in Article (2)(c) of the Code. See Conclusion #83 86 (48) 48 During the first phase of review cycle it was discussed and agreed that there is no added value in this definition of place of unloading in the context of banana weighing certificate and that it was going to be deleted. And indeed it has been deleted 10 / 13