Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 14-07-2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:3113, 15/00170
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 14-07-2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:3113, 15/00170
Gegevens
- Instantie
- Gerechtshof Amsterdam
- Datum uitspraak
- 14 juli 2016
- Datum publicatie
- 3 augustus 2016
- ECLI
- ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:3113
- Formele relaties
- Cassatie: ECLI:NL:HR:2018:1022, (Gedeeltelijke) vernietiging en zelf afgedaan
- Zaaknummer
- 15/00170
Inhoudsindicatie
Douanerecht; oorsprong; douanewaarde. Ongeldigverklaring c.q. intrekking van de Formulieren A vormt op zichzelf reeds voldoende grondslag voor navordering van de niet-geheven douanerechten/antidumpingrechten. Antidumpingrecht komt niet in mindering op de douanewaarde. Het hoger beroep is ongegrond.
Uitspraak
Kenmerk 15/00170
14 juli 2016
uitspraak van de meervoudige douanekamer
op het hoger beroep van
[X] B.V. te [Z] , belanghebbende,
gemachtigde: mr. C. van Oosten,
tegen de uitspraak van 6 maart 2015 in de zaak met kenmerk HAA 14/3259 van de rechtbank Noord-Holland (hierna: de rechtbank) in het geding tussen
belanghebbende,
en
de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, de inspecteur,
1 Ontstaan en loop van het geding
De inspecteur heeft met dagtekening 28 oktober 2013 een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: UTB) van douanerechten uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 20.023,99.
Na daartegen gemaakt bezwaar heeft de inspecteur bij uitspraak op bezwaar van
8 juli 2014 de UTB gehandhaafd.
Bij uitspraak van 6 maart 2015 heeft de rechtbank het beroep ongegrond verklaard.
Het tegen deze uitspraak door belanghebbende ingestelde hoger beroep is bij het Hof ingekomen op 14 april 2015 en bij brief van 12 mei 2015 gemotiveerd. De inspecteur heeft op 15 juni 2015 een verweerschrift ingediend.
Het onderzoek ter zitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 7 juni 2016. Van het verhandelde ter zitting is een proces-verbaal opgemaakt dat met deze uitspraak wordt meegezonden.
2 Feiten
De rechtbank heeft in haar uitspraak – waarin belanghebbende en de inspecteur telkens zijn aangeduid als ‘eiseres’ respectievelijk ‘verweerder’ – de volgende feiten vastgesteld:
“1. Eiseres is de rechtsopvolger van [W] B.V. (hierna: [W] ).
2. Op 29 oktober 2010 heeft [douane expediteur 1] B.V. op naam en voor rekening van [W] onder de leveringsconditie CIF aangifte voor het brengen in het vrije verkeer gedaan van “artikelen zonder schroefdraad, tw sluitringen, andere” onder GN-code 7318 22 00 en van “andere artikelen van roestvrij staal zonder schroefdraad” onder GN-code 7318 21 00. Als land van oorsprong is Indonesië aangegeven. Bij de aangifte is een op naam van [Bedrijf 1] gesteld certificaat van oorsprong Form A met nummer [Kenmerk] overgelegd.
3. Op 27 juli, 17 augustus, 11 oktober, 4 november en 21 november 2011 heeft [douane expediteur 2] B.V. op naam en voor rekening van [W] onder de leveringsconditie DDP aangifte voor het brengen in het vrije verkeer gedaan van “bouten en moeren” onder GN-code 7318 15 90. Als land van oorsprong is Indonesië aangegeven. Bij iedere aangifte is een op naam van [Bedrijf 2] gesteld certificaat van oorsprong Form A met nummer [Kenmerk] respectievelijk [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] en [Kenmerk] overgelegd.
4. Op 8 november 2011 heeft [douane expediteur 3] B.V. op naam en voor rekening van [W] onder de leveringsconditie DDP aangifte voor het brengen in het vrije verkeer gedaan van “schroeven” onder GN-code 7318 15 89. Als land van oorsprong is Indonesië aangegeven. Bij de aangifte is een op naam van [Bedrijf 2] gesteld certificaat van oorsprong Form A met nummer [Kenmerk] overgelegd.
5. Op de facturen van [Bedrijf 2] aan eiseres is geen bedrag aan antidumpingrechten vermeld.
6. In 2011 is het antifraudebureau van de Europese Commissie (hierna: de OLAF) een onderzoek gestart naar de oorsprong van – kort gezegd – diverse soorten stalen en ijzeren bevestigingsmiddelen die vanuit Indonesië naar de Europese Unie werden geëxporteerd. In het kader van de administratieve samenwerking heeft de OLAF van 11 tot 22 februari 2013 een bezoek gebracht aan Indonesië. De ‘Agreed Joint Minutes’ van 22 februari 2013, die mede zijn ondertekend door Mr Junaedi, Director for Export and Import Facilitation, houdt – voor zover van belang – onder meer in:
“(…)
1. BACKGROUND
Since the entry into force of the antidumping regulation on imports of Chinese steel
fasteners other than stainless steel in January 2009, these products, originating in the PR
China (hereafter: PRC), are suspected to be transshipped through Indonesia and imported
into the EU under the cover of Indonesian preferential origin certificates Form A unduly
issued, thus eluding antidumping duties (hereafter ADD) and Customs duties at import into
the European Union (EU).
The products subject to this verification are certain iron or steel fasteners other than of stainless steel, originating in the People’s Republic of China, falling within CN codes 7318 12 90, 7318 14 91, 7318 14 99, 7318 15 59, 7518 15 69, 7318 15 81, 7318 15 89, LJN ex7318 15 90, LJN ex7318 21 00 and LJN ex7318 22 00, and, are subject to ADD at rates between 26.5% and 85.0% under Council Regulation 91/2009 of 26 January 2009.
Imports of such products, when genuinely originating/manufactured in Indonesia, are not subject to ADD measures.
The purpose of this investigative mission is to verify, together with the competent
authorities of Indonesia, the accuracy of the information contained in the preferential origin
certificates Form A presented at importation of steel fasteners in the EU, from the period
2010 to date, and to determine the true origin of the products in question.
(…)
2 COOPERATION INDONESIA – EU MISSION TEAM
From the 11 to the 22 February 2013, in the context of an enquiry and administrative cooperation, as provided for under the provisions of Art 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences as amended, Member States of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and representatives of Member States of the European Union (Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium), visited Indonesia with the agreement of the Indonisian authorities, specifically, the Directorate of Trade Defence – Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia.
The exchange of information and enquiries took place with the view to determining the true origin of the goods exported by several Indonesian producers/exporters and to obtain information and evidences to establish whether the correct origin has been declared at import into the EU in accordance with the Generalised System of Preferences scheme mentioned in Point 1.
(…)
Non-genuine manufacturer, not complying with the GPS regulations: [Bedrijf 2] (18-19 February 2013)
On the spot, it was found that [Bedrijf 2] has been purportedly taken
over by another Indonesian company, in December 2012. As the purchase of the company
was concluded in December 2012, the person claims to be its new manager (hereafter: the
new Manager) has not decided yet whether it will keep or change the company name, i.e.,
[Bedrijf 2] . The new manager stated that [Bedrijf 2] was purchased to
manufacture in the future steel fasteners for the local market.
According to the new Manager’s statement, [Bedrijf 2] was owned by a Chinese
company, and the former Managers left Indonesia after having sold the company in January,
2013. Following his statement, he purported that the former Manager removed some
equipment from the factory, in particular the loading and unloading ramps. He also stated
that the former activity of the company was the manufacturing of steel fasteners from semi
finished product. However, the new manager stated that former company stopped production in October, 2012. Moreover, the new Manager stated that he never saw the factory producing steel fasteners.
On the spot, at the premises of the factory there were five (5) heading machines, five (5)
threading machines, one (1) heat treatment machine and three (3) plating machines and
washing machines. These 14 machines are identical to those described and shown in the
company profile provided in September 2012 by the former management of the company to
the Batam Indonesia Free Trade Authority (BIFZA).
He also stated that the customers placed their orders to the sales office of [Bedrijf 2]
in China. The new Manager stated that [Bedrijf 2] have had more than
50 customers in the EU.
Some documentation related to export consignments of steel fasteners to EU, sales contracts and imports of steel fasteners from the PR China, remained at the office of the company. Among this documentation invoices were found of the machinery described above and office equipment imported into Indonesia from the PR China. The Team also found copies of imports of “fasteners” and of “steel products (fasteners)” from the PR China. All imports were invoiced by the same Chinese company, [naam Chinees bedrijf] Ltd.
No documentation was found related to payments, bank transactions, electricity consumption, water supplying and/or any other supplying of materials like pallets, cartons, etc, necessary for the alleged activity of the company, i.e., the manufacture of steel fasteners.
The new Manager stated that the former factory had around 44 workers. He was shown the quantities of steel fasteners exported to the EU during 2010 to 2012, and he stated that it was impossible to manufacture such amount of steel fasteners with the equipment and
machinery installed in the factory.
In addition to the visit of the premises of the factory, a visit was paid to the forwarding
agency [naam forwarding agency] , in Batam Island. The sales Manager of [naam forwarding agency] stated that the agency have
arranged the transport for the consignments imported by [Bedrijf 2] from the PR
China to Singapore, and afterwards to Batam, and the transport of similar consignments of
steel fasteners exported from Batam to the EU, via Singapore. [naam forwarding agency] Sales Manager
confirmed to the EU mission team that the last importation arranged on behalf of [Bedrijf 2] was for six (6) containers of steel fasteners shipped at the Port of Ningbo, PR China, on 18 October 2012.
Based on the findings mentioned above, it is concluded that [Bedrijf 2] did not
have real capacity to manufacture steel fasteners, neither from raw material and/or from
semi finished products, as they claimed to BIFZA. Therefore, the “semi finished” products, as described on the invoices issued by Ningbo Jinding Fasteners, imported from PR China into Batam was actually “finished product, and the same product imported from PR China, was re-exported to the EU.
5 Mission conclusions in relation with the GSP certificates of Indonesian Preferential Origin Form A.
(…)
[Bedrijf 2]
As explained in point 4.3, the company never manufactured steel fasteners in Batam but
exported unduly to the EU finished Chinese products under the cover of authentic certificates of origin GSP Form A. These certificates were issued by the Batam Indonesia Free Zone Authority (BIFZA) on the basis of false and misleading information provided by the company [Bedrijf 2] , for the alleged shipment of steel fasteners to the EU.
Therefore these certificates do not comply with the GSP rules of origin, they are invalid and
have been withdrawn by the Directorate of Export and Import Facilitation. A list of the
certificates which fall into this category is attached as Annex 4.”
7. Annex 4 bij de ‘Agreed Joint Minutes’ draagt het opschrift ‘GPS certificates - [Bedrijf 2] ’. Op de lijst staan onder meer de aan [Bedrijf 2] afgegeven Forms A met de nummers [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] , [Kenmerk] en [Kenmerk] .
8. Het ‘final report’ van de OLAF met nummer [Kenmerk] houdt – voor zover van belang – onder meer in:
“(…)
Post-mission action concerning the GSP certificates of origin identified after the mission by the Member States.
(…)
In relation with the exporter [Bedrijf 2] , the Joint Agreed Minutes stated that “the company.. exported unduly to the EU finished Chinese products under the cover of authentic certificates of origin GSP Form A. These certificates were issued by the Batam Indonesia Free Zone Authority (BIFZA) on the basis of false and misleading information provided by the company [Bedrijf 2] .. Therefore these certificates do not comply with the GSP rules of origin; they are invalid.”.
Lists of the related certificates of origin already identified by the Member States were also attached to the Joint Agreed Minutes (Annexes 2 to 5).
It was agreed at this time that, with regard to the certificates of origin Form A bearing the names of the above-mentioned companies, these would be identified after the mission by the Member States, and the Directorate of Export and Import Facilitation would confirm at OLAF’s request that these GSP certificates of origin Form A were false/forged or based on misleading information provided by the companies in question and were therefore invalid.
The related GSP certificates of origin were listed in the Annex 1 of the OLAF letter to the Directorate of Export and Import Facilitation of 12 June 2013 (Thor (2013) 14461).
By message of 5 July 2013 and reminder of 26 August 2013 (Thor (2013) 21377), OLAF requested the Directorate of Export and Import Facilitation to deal with this as a matter of particular urgency. To date, however, no reply has been received from the Indonesian authorities.”
Nu de door de rechtbank vastgestelde feiten door partijen op zichzelf niet zijn bestreden, zal ook het Hof daarvan uitgaan.
In aanvulling op de door de rechtbank vastgestelde feiten stelt het Hof de volgende feiten vast.
In de door de rechtbank onder punt 6 aangehaalde ‘Agreed Joint Minutes’ is onder 5.1. het volgende vermeld:
“5.1. [Bedrijf 1] <overige bedrijfsnamen onleesbaar gemaakt>
In addition to the ones mentioned in point 4, several other operators were also the subject of the current investigation; the companies [Bedrijf 1] <overige bedrijfsnamen onleesbaar gemaakt>.
On the occasion of the preparatory meeting of December 2012 and the opening meeting of the present mission on 11 Februari 2013, the Directorate of Export and Import Facilitation (Min of Trad) reported to OLAF their findings as regards to their checks on the seven operators mentioned above. They confirmed to the EU-OLAF team that the seven Indonesian operators selected and located in the Province of Jakarta are currently non-existent.
They also established that the GSP certificates, provided by OLAF, presented at import into the EU and related to these seven Indonesian exporters, were actually issued in favor of other companies.
In addition, no records of imports or exports of the products concerned by these companies were found by the Directorate of Customs and Excise of Indonesia. Therefore, these companies never carried out any importation into Indonesia and any exportation from Indonesia. It is accepted that the fasteners in question were never shipped through from Indonesia
(…)
It is concluded that false or forged certificates of origin GSP Form A in the name of the companies [Bedrijf 1] <overige bedrijfsnamen onleesbaar gemaakt> were presented at import into the EU and that these certificates are, therefore, invalid.
(…)”
3. Geschil in hoger beroep
Evenals bij de rechtbank is bij het Hof in geschil of de bestreden UTB terecht en tot het juiste bedrag aan belanghebbende is uitgereikt.
Voor de onderbouwing van de standpunten van partijen wordt verwezen naar de stukken van het geding, waaronder het proces-verbaal van het verhandelde ter zitting.