Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 16-01-2014, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:182, 12/00212 en 12/00213
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 16-01-2014, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:182, 12/00212 en 12/00213
Gegevens
- Instantie
- Gerechtshof Amsterdam
- Datum uitspraak
- 16 januari 2014
- Datum publicatie
- 5 februari 2014
- ECLI
- ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:182
- Zaaknummer
- 12/00212 en 12/00213
Inhoudsindicatie
Douane. Land van oorsprong. In geschil is of de UTB’s ter zake van de antidumpingrechten, in verband met de door de Minister gestelde Chinese oorsprong van de handpallettrucks, op goede gronden zijn opgelegd.
Het Hof is gelet op de feiten en omstandigheden van oordeel dat sprake is van een ingrijpende en economisch verantwoorde bewerking die een belangrijk fabricagestadium vertegenwoordigt, in Thailand. Het Hof heeft daarbij in aanmerking genomen dat de fabricage van het framework, de assemblage en de kwaliteitscontrole in Thailand hebben plaatsgevonden. De UTB's zijn ten onrechte opgelegd.
Zogenoemde ‘list of rules’ leidt niet tot een ander oordeel.
Uitspraak
kenmerken 12/00212 en 12/00213
16 januari 2014
uitspraak van de meervoudige douanekamer
op het hoger beroep van
de Minister van Economische Zaken, vertegenwoordigd door de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, hierna: de Minister,
alsmede
op het incidenteel hoger beroep van
[X] B.V. te [Z], hierna: belanghebbende,
gemachtigde: mr. L.C.A. Wijsman (Nauta Dutilh N.V.),
tegen de uitspraken in de zaken met kenmerken AWB 11/2173 en 11/2175 van de rechtbank Haarlem (hierna: de rechtbank) van 31 januari 2012 in het geding tussen
belanghebbende
en
de Minister.
1 Ontstaan en loop van het geding
De Minister heeft met dagtekening 15 april 2009 en 27 januari 2010 aan
belanghebbende onder nummers[*] en[**] uitnodigingen tot betaling (hierna: UTB’s) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van respectievelijk € 143.215,85 en € 78.584,77 aan antidumpingrechten, op grond van Verordening (EG) nr. 1174/2005 van de Raad van 18 juli 2005 tot instelling van een definitief antidumpingrecht en tot definitieve inning van het voorlopige recht op de invoer van handpallettrucks en essentiële delen daarvan uit de Volksrepubliek China.
Na daartegen gemaakt bezwaar heeft de Minister bij uitspraken, gedagtekend 10 maart
2011, de UTB’s gehandhaafd.
Bij uitspraak van 31 januari 2012 heeft de rechtbank de door belanghebbende
ingestelde beroepen gegrond verklaard, de uitspraken op bezwaar en de UTB’s vernietigd, de Minister veroordeeld in de proceskosten van belanghebbende ten bedrage van € 874 en
gelast dat de Minister het door belanghebbende betaalde griffierecht van € 302 vergoedt.
De Minister heeft tegen deze uitspraak hoger beroep ingesteld, bij het Hof ingekomen op 9 maart 2012, en aangevuld bij brieven van 2 april 2012. Belanghebbende heeft een verweerschrift ingediend en heeft daarbij incidenteel hoger beroep ingesteld. De Minister heeft het incidenteel hoger beroep beantwoord.
Daartoe door het Hof in de gelegenheid gesteld heeft belanghebbende een conclusie van
repliek ingediend, waarop door de Minister is gereageerd bij conclusie van dupliek. Belanghebbende heeft voorafgaand aan de zitting een nader stuk ingediend, bij het Hof ingekomen op 18 november 2013.
Het onderzoek ter zitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 10 december 2013. Van het
verhandelde ter zitting is een proces-verbaal opgemaakt dat met deze uitspraak wordt meegezonden.
2 Feiten
In hoger beroep is op grond van de stukken van het geding en het verhandelde ter zitting, als tussen partijen niet in geschil, het volgende komen vast te staan:
Aangiften
Belanghebbende heeft in de periode 18 april 2006 tot en met 2 mei 2007 aangiften ten invoer ingediend voor 20 zendingen handpallettrucks (hierna: HPT’s) van oorsprong uit Thailand. Belanghebbende heeft hierbij aanspraak gemaakt op tariefpreferentie onder het Algemeen Preferentieel Systeem (hierna: APS). UTB nummer[*] heeft betrekking op 17 van deze aangiften.
Belanghebbende heeft in de periode 22 mei tot en met 17 december 2007 aangiften ten invoer ingediend voor 10 zendingen HPT’s van oorsprong uit Thailand en hierbij eveneens aanspraak gemaakt op toepassing van het APS. UTB nummer[**] heeft betrekking op deze 10 aangiften.
OLAF onderzoek
De grote toename van de invoer van HPT’s met aangegeven oorsprong Thailand vormde, in combinatie met de grote toename van de uitvoer van onderdelen voor HPT’s vanuit China naar Thailand, aanleiding voor het Europese antifraudebureau OLAF om in maart 2008 een onderzoek in te stellen. Van 3 tot 13 maart 2008 heeft een afvaardiging van OLAF Thailand bezocht. In het daarvan opgemaakt missierapport van 11 maart 2008 is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“3.8.4. Calculation of the added value
In respect of the HPT which were assembled by [producent] the following items can be taken into account when calculating the added value in Thailand:
- the value of the framework, which were generally produced by [B],
- the labour costs,
- normal profit,
- general costs borne,
According to documentation presented by [producent], the value of the framework for typical HPT ranges from around USD 36 up to USD 40 (…). However, according to one of the import declaration made by [A], the price of such frameworks bought in China was 25 USD per unit (…). This example indicates that the prices of the parts declared as acquired on the local market from [B] could have been inflated by [producent].
In addition, the prices of lever control bars shown in import documents from China by [A] and those shown by [producent] in invoices for the local supply were compared. According to documentation presented by [producent] in the course of a post-verification (…):
- the price of rollers/wheel frames ranged from 8.352 USD to 10.8652 USD,
- the price of lever control bars was 8.6445 USD,
- the price of extending bars was 1.8204USD.
In fact, the prices shown in the China National invoices for [A] were as follows (…):
- wheel frames/roller from 7.14USD to 9.49 USD (roughly 85% of the value declared later as the local content),
- lever control bar 7.55 USD (roughly 85% of the value declared later as the local content),
- extending bar 1.59 USD (roughly 85% of the value declared later as the local content).
This example also demonstrates that the prices of the parts declared later as acquired on the local market from [B] (but in fact imported by [A]) were manipulated.
According to the documentation presented by [producent] when the company had clarified the post-verification issue of the [J] certificates, the profit ranged from 9 to 22 USD per unit, and overhead costs were 4,3214 USD; ex-works price of complete HPT ranged from 127USD to 134USD.
Taking into account the following:
- the price of the framework - 25 USD,
- medium profit - 15 USD,
- overhead - 5 USD,
The added value ranges from 33% to 35% of the ex-works price. It was, therefore, far below the 45% added value, which was necessary to confer non-preferential Thai origin.
(…)”.
In een bijlage bij het missierapport met de titel “Agreed Conclusions” is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“4. [producent]
A visit was made to the premises of [producent] on 5, 6 and 11 March. It was verified that at the time of the visit it carries out an assembly operation to produce HPT from HPT components, all of which are purchased either from foreign or local suppliers.
Imported content
According to the documentation provided by [producent] to the DFT in support of its [J] applications, the company did import components classified under 8414 (hydraulic pumps) and 8431 (other HPT parts) from China
Examination of the available supporting documentation (import declarations supplied by the Thai customs) it has been verified that the company did import components classified under 8414 (hydraulic pump) and 8413 (other HPT parts) from China. These materials amounted to on average about 35% of the ex works price of the finished HPT ie just below the 40% threshold specified in the origin rules.
Local content
According to the documentation provided by [producent] to the DFT in support of its [J] applications, certain components (fork, extension bars, lever control bar and rollers) have been supplied by local suppliers (now [B] and previously [BB]). Local materials amount to on average 45% and local added value (overheads and profit) amounts on average to about 20% of the ex works price of the finished HPT.
A visit was made to [B] on 7 March. It was verified that it has the capacity to produce only the metal part of the local content (chassis ie forks and frame, extension bars and lever control bar). However, [B] stated that it does not produce either polyurethane or nylon rollers but that it was dealer in rollers. Despite the huge volume of transactions, [B] was unable to state from where or whom it bought the rollers nor was it able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the total lack of supporting documentation regarding the rollers (no physical stock, no stock account, no purchase invoices etc).
[producent] was also unable to provide any further documentation which would support their claim of local content for the rollers which are generally of polyurethane and occasionally of nylon. According to the company’s own figures on their [J] applications, the rollers represent on average of about 15% of the ex works price of the finished HPT.”
In de bijlage met de titel “Visit report to [producent]” is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“General
Mr [Y] stated that the reason for setting up [producent] in Thailand was due to a “market opportunity” taken up by [C] on proposal from Chinese investors. (…) The shareholding also had changed recently and Company is virtually 100% owned by the Chinese persons. Mr [Y] stated that one of the persons is from the Chinese hand pallet truck producer [D].
(…) Almost all components are either imported from China (from the state trading company China National which is acting on behalf of [D]) or purchased on local market from [B]. The company has been approved by Thai customs to operate a duty drawback scheme. Under this scheme, they pay import duty on imported components to Thai customs which is then refunded at exportation.
Mr [Y] stated that [B] is an unrelated Thai supplier of forks, lever control bars, extension bar and also of rollers (both single and tandem type rollers and also both nylon and polyurethane rollers).
Tour of premises
(…)
Mr [Y] stated that it is essentially an assembly activity – there are no pressing machines, no paint workshop and no welding carried out in the process. The assembly process consists of the following stages:
1. The pump and wheels (imported from Chinese company [Chinese company]) are assembled together.
2. The forks (thickness and length vary according to model), lever control bar, rollers, extension bar (all supplied by a local supplier [B]) and pump and wheels are all assembled on 3 lines each operated by 2 persons to form a chassis.
3. The handle assembly (imported from Chinese company [Chinese company]) is fixed to the chassis to make a finished hand pallet truck.
4. Testing is carried out – weight test (maximum capacity of HPT+10%), levelling test (to ensure forks are balanced correctly) and dimension test (to ensure specified distances respected).
5. Handle disassembled for packing purposes and individual Carton packing for each chassis and handle and placing on pallet with relevant instructions.
6. 6 pallets each containing 30 HPTs (…) each are loaded on a 20 foot container and they are shipped to the customer. All containers are transhipped to an ocean vessel at Singapore en route to the European customer.”
In de bijlage met de titel “Visit report to [B]” is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“General
Mr [E] stated that the company had been set up in 2005 in order to provide parts to [producent] which is his only customer. He stated [BB] originally supplied [producent]. [B] subsequently purchased the machinery from [BB] and started production. He also mentioned a third company ([F]). [BB] remains active on the local market. A paint workshop was purchased from a local company (…) and started in June 2007. (…)
Tour of factory
(…)
A fully functioning production activity was seen with cutting, pressing and moulding and welding all taking place. The following was observed:
Rectangular sheet steel being cut to size and holes made in metal
Metal being pressed into shape and moulded to form the shape of a fork
Welding of extension bar and lever control bar and welding of chassis to forks
Forks being cleaned and painted in paint workshop
It was verified by reference to purchase orders that that all forks sizes which are sold by [producent] are produced.
Purchase orders and proof of payment for 2 transactions of forks and related metal products for 2006 and 2007 were provided. The test was satisfactory as all bank payments from [producent] were found to match the amounts indicated on invoices
Rollers
Mr [E] stated that the company was not a producer of rollers. He said that they had been asked to procure rollers on behalf of [producent] and was therefore acting more as a dealer. (…)
When asked to explain how he obtains the rollers, he said that they periodically ordered from a dealer who would deliver but they did not know the real producer; then they deliver the rollers to [producent] usually without opening the boxes. Subsequently this dealer’s name was given as a “Mr [G]” and a mobile phone number supplied. Mr [H] of the DFT called Mr [G] number. He informed the team that “Mr [G]” said that he would not reveal the source of his supplier, the reason being that he was afraid that [B] would do business directly with the roller supplier and cut him out of the business.
Subsequently, Mr [H] of the DFT informed the team that Mr [G] had called him again and claimed that the rollers were produced by a company in Bangkok ([Bangkok]). As this company was not registered with the Thai authorities, it was not considered useful to pursue this matter.”
In de bijlage met de titel “Visit report to [A] Company Limited” is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“A visit was made to the above address. The company is registered with the Thai authorities as a company dealing in metal products since 19 September 2005. Actually, it was quite difficult to find the exact address but it must be a villa indicated by the team’s driver. The villa is located in a domestic residential district in central Bangkok. Some photographs were taken. It was clearly not a factory building.”
In de bijlage met de titel “Visit report to [Ltd]” is, voor zover van belang, het volgende opgenomen:
“He stated that he had been involved in business with [producent] since 2005. He does not have any knowledge about [B]. He mentioned [B] without any prior question from the team concerning this company. In fact he cannot tell the team what precisely [producent] is doing. He prepares shipping and customs declaration for [producent]. He informed the team that he declared mostly hand pallet trucks parts for [producent]. He could not specify which kind of parts for hand pallet trucks are declared since he does not open the boxes or containers.”
In een brief van 19 mei 2009 schrijft het Thaise Bureau of Import Administration onder andere het volgende aan OLAF:
“Subject:Verification of the origin of hand pallet truck exported from Thailand to the European Community
(wit gelakt)
In this respect, we wish to inform you further information concerning the required non-Chinese import statistic of relevant parties namely [producent] Thailand, [A], and [I]. It is indicated that these companies had never imported any non-Chiness products into Thailand since 2005 subject to the official records of Thai customs.”
Tot de gedingstukken behoort een brief van 17 december 2010 van HM Revenue & Customs aan het [advocatenkantoor 1] te Brussel die, voor zover van belang, als volgt luidt:
“I have considered the review decision issued to your client Mr Denver Wilson dated the 06th March 2009 and I have decided the liability sum of [weggelakt] appertaining to the Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) in Post Clearance Demand Note (C 18) C18006802 can be repaid.
There are two elements to the appeal [weggelakt] of customs duties in respect of an invalid claim to [J] and [weggelakt] ADD. The import duty remains legally due and is therefore, not refundable.”
Tot de gedingstukken behoort een e-mail van 17 juni 2011 van het advocatenkantoor [advocatenkantoor 2] te Hamburg aan eiseres die, voor zover van belang, als volgt luidt:
“This week we have received the formal decision of one of the German customs offices.
The decision is reasoned as follows:
Nach erneuter Überprüfung der Sachlage im Rahmen der Einsprungsverfahren EL … und EL … konnte der Ursprung der Waren in Thailand festgestellt warden, da dort die letzte wesentliche und wirtschaftlich berechtigte Be- und Verarbeitung in einem dazu eingerichteten Unternehmen stattgefunden hat und dadurch ein neues Erzeugnis hergestellt wurde bzw. eine bedeutende Herstellungsstufe erreicht wurde.
Der mit den Bescheiden .. und … zu Unrecht angeforderte Antidumping-Zoll und zu viel gezahlter Zoll-EO ist deshalb gem. Art. 236 Zollkodex zu erstatten.
Ihren obengenannten Einspruch ist damit vollständig abgeholfen.”
3 Geschil in hoger beroep
In hoger beroep is in geschil het antwoord op de vraag of de UTB’s ter zake van de antidumpingrechten, in verband met de door de Minister gestelde Chinese oorsprong van de goederen, op goede gronden zijn opgelegd.
In incidenteel hoger beroep is in geschil of de rechtbank ten onrechte belanghebbendes verzoek om een integrale proceskostenvergoeding heeft afgewezen.
Voor de standpunten van partijen wordt verwezen naar de gedingstukken waaronder het proces-verbaal van het verhandelde ter zitting.