Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 22-12-2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:5574, 15/00724
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 22-12-2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:5574, 15/00724
Gegevens
- Instantie
- Gerechtshof Amsterdam
- Datum uitspraak
- 22 december 2016
- Datum publicatie
- 30 januari 2017
- ECLI
- ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:5574
- Formele relaties
- Eerste aanleg: ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2015:7853
- Cassatie: ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1506
- Zaaknummer
- 15/00724
Inhoudsindicatie
Douane; antidumpingrechten op ijzeren/stalen bevestigingsmiddelen uit China; is Verordening (EG) nr. 91/2009 ongeldig? Welke bewijsstandaard dient op de voet van artikel 78, derde lid, van het CDW te worden gehanteerd? Met de overgelegde stukken van OLAF heeft de inspecteur voldaan aan de op hem rustende last aannemelijk te maken dat de ingevoerde bevestigingsmiddelen oorsprong China hebben
Uitspraak
Kenmerk 15/00724
22 december 2016
uitspraak van de meervoudige douanekamer
op het hoger beroep van
[X] B.V. te [Z] , belanghebbende,
gemachtigde: mr. R. Andringa,
tegen de uitspraak van 27 juli 2015 in de zaak met kenmerk HAA 15/632 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 4 juni 2014 een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: UTB) van rechten bij invoer (antidumpingrechten) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 954.269,50.
De inspecteur heeft bij uitspraak van 29 december 2014 het bezwaar daartegen ongegrond verklaard.
De rechtbank heeft in haar uitspraak van 27 juli 2015 het beroep ongegrond verklaard.
Het tegen deze uitspraak door belanghebbende ingestelde hoger beroep is bij het Hof ingekomen op 28 augustus 2015 en gemotiveerd bij brief van 25 september 2015. De inspecteur heeft een verweerschrift ingediend.
Belanghebbende heeft bij brieven van 21 maart 2016 en 9 augustus 2016 het hoger beroep nader gemotiveerd. De brieven zijn in kopie aan de inspecteur gezonden.
Het onderzoek ter zitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 30 augustus 2016. Van het verhandelde ter zitting is een proces-verbaal opgemaakt. Het Hof heeft het onderzoek ter zitting geschorst en belanghebbende in de gelegenheid gesteld een tweetal stellingen nader te onderbouwen. Bij brief van 26 september 2016 heeft belanghebbende van deze gelegenheid gebruik gemaakt. Bij schrijven van 5 oktober 2016 heeft de inspecteur gereageerd op de brief van belanghebbende. Het Hof heeft op de voet van artikel 8:64, vijfde lid, van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht (hierna: Awb) bepaald dat een nadere zitting achterwege blijft. Partijen hebben daarvoor toestemming gegeven.
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 heeft in 2011 in eigen naam en voor eigen rekening 10 aangiften gedaan voor de douaneregeling brengen in het vrije verkeer voor metalen (ijzeren/stalen) bevestigingsmiddelen. De bevestigingsmiddelen zijn afkomstig van [A] Ltd. en [B] Ltd.
2. In het missierapport van 14 mei 2013 [Hof: Thor (2013)11786] van het antifraudebureau van de Commissie (hierna: OLAF) staat onder meer het volgende:
“5) [A] Ltd
[…]
7) [C] Ltd [xxx]
8) [B] Ltd
The five company names mentioned above were communicated to OLAF by the DFT and some Member States as suppliers of suspect consignments of fasteners. They all appear on a DFT black list.
[D] Ltd is linked to [A] Ltd (owned and operated by the same persons). When the DFT wanted to verify exports by [A] / [D] changed their name into [C] Ltd [xxx] .
The DFT has never issued any GSP certificate of origin Form A for any of those five companies. Therefore, all certificates verified so far upon request of the importing Member States were found to be forged.
(…)
The DFT communicated that [C] Ltd [xxx] requested the issuing of ten non-preferential certificates of origin for goods other than fasteners. The numbers of these certificates were then used by [C] on forged GSP certificates of origin Form A for fasteners. The DFT has been requested to provide copies of these non-preferential certificates of origin by the OLAF letter attached as Annex 2 to this mission report.
(…)”
3. In het verslag van 7 januari 2014 van het bezoek aan [E] LTD (hierna: [E] ) staat onder meer het volgende:
“Prior to the visit to the [E] Ltd warehouse, a meeting with the warehouse manager, Mr. [naam persoon], took place in the premises of the Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau. OLAF informed the manager about the purpose of the visit as set out in subheading 1. of this visit report.
During the meeting, the warehouse manager confirmed that fasteners were trafficked through the warehouse for the following companies:
[…]
[A] Ltd
[…]
[C] Ltd [xxx]
[…]
[B] Ltd.
The warehouse manager stated that all consignments concerned were imported into the warehouse from the PR China and re-exported without undergoing any processing. He explained further that only packing and re-packing activities were allowed in the warehouse whereas manufacturing activities were not allowed.
He explained the procedure to be followed when importing / storing / exporting goods through the warehouse as follows:
• An importer hired space in a warehouse prior to import of goods.
• The importer must report by e-mail that consignments will be imported.
• At arrival of the goods, 3 documents are required: a free zone permit mentioning the details of the consignments, a customs import declaration and the invoice + packing list.
• The warehouse keeper checks these documents against the consignment and issues an intake tally sheet.
• When the goods are taken out from the warehouse, the following three documents are required: exit free zone permit, a customs export declaration and an export invoice. The warehouse keeper issues an outtake tally sheet. The exit free zone permit and the outtake tally sheet do not contain a link to the free zone import permit and intake tally sheet. The only link is the name of the client, the specifications of the consignment and the description of the product
The warehouse manager keeps records in electronic format to balance the incoming and outgoing consignments: the “inventory”. However, there is neither an inventory nor intake and outtake tallies for consignments which are not stored between arrival in the warehouse and their onward shipment. Such consignments are unloaded from the importing container and immediately stuffed into another container for re-export. The system is called “Touch & Go”.
(…)”
4. In het missierapport van 1 april 2014 van OLAF [Hof: Thor (2014)8967] staat onder meer het volgende:
“As a result of this mission, on 19.04.2013 OLAF received by e-mail from the DFT (OLAF
registration Thor( 2013)10222 - attached as Annex 2 to this mission report) a list of imports and exports of fasteners by the following companies:
(…)
5. [A] Ltd (hereafter [A] )
(…)
15. [B] Ltd (hereafter [B] )
(…)
On 16.05.2013, this information was also handed over to OLAF on a CD-ROM together with DFT letter no. 0303/1827 of 10.05.2013 during a meeting in Brussels (see subheading 1.1.2.d). The DFT letter is also attached to Annex 2 of this mission report.
The import list contains the consignments of fasteners imported into Thailand from different countries but mainly from the PR China (more than 99 %) and includes the following details:
• date and number of the Thai customs import declaration,
• quantity and weight of the consignment,
• country of origin,
• tariff heading and
• short description of the product.
The export list contains the consignments exported from Thailand to the EU, mainly declared as originating in the PR China and Thailand, and shows the following details:
• date and number of the Thai customs export declaration,
• quantity and weight of the consignment,
• country of destination,
• tariff heading and
• short description of the product.
Analysis of data
a. a) Companies
As a result of the analysis of the data received from the Royal Thai Customs and the Department of Foreign Trade, the following had already been established in relation to the 16 companies concerned:
• 14 of the 16 selected suppliers imported into Thailand fasteners from the PR China and re-exported all or part of these fasteners to the EU. A significant number of consignments could already be linked to EU imports.
(…)
• From the 14 remaining companies the following 7 companies either did not exist or
had ceased business: (…) (4) [C] Ltd [xxx] , (5) [B] Ltd,
(…)
b) Matches between imported and exported consignments
After comparing the import details with the export details (dates, quantities and/or net weight), a large number of imported and exported consignments could be matched with each other. For each of the fourteen (14) companies OLAF extracted a separate import and export listing from the Thai import/export lists (attached as Annex 4.1 to 4.14 to this mission report).
OLAF added in each export listing an extra column “Link to China import”. The exports with an established link to an import on the basis of the weight and/or quantity of the consignments are marked with “Yes” or “Yes” with some extra information in this column. In case no match could be found the remark “no” or “no import found” is mentioned there. The time gap between the import and the (re)export of a matched consignment ranges in almost all the cases only between one or a few days.
c) Matches with EU imports
OLAF compared the Thai export listings with the data provided by the Member States. These data are stored in an OLAF master database updated until December 2013. A large number of consignments imported into the EU could be matched with consignments exported from Thailand to the EU. OLAF added a second extra column to the Thai export listings (heading “link to EU import”). Where an EU import could be matched with the related Thai export, the reference of the EU import as shown in the OLAF master database is mentioned in this column.
(…)
OLAF extracted from this master database a separate list for each company. These lists are also attached to the Annexes 4.1 to 4.14)
(…)
Meeting with Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau - 05.08.2013
The OLAF mission team outlined the purpose of the mission.
In relation to the data recorded in the customs import and export databases, it was confirmed that the following information could be provided by Customs upon request from OLAF:
a. a) On the import side:
• Number of the import declaration
• Date of the import declaration
• HS code
• Packages
• Weight/quantity
• Name of (destination) company
• Number and date of the invoice presented at importation
• Goods description
• Declared origin
• Number of packages
• Marks and numbers
• Loading country
• Vessel name
• Number of bill of lading
• Storage of the goods: warehouse/freezone/Economic Processing Zone (EPZ)
• Name of the warehouse
b) On the export side:
• Number of the export declaration
• Date of the export declaration
• HS code
• Packages
• Weight/quantity
• Name of the exporting company
• Invoice number
• Goods description
• Declared origin at exportation
• Marks and numbers
• Loading port
• Vessel name
• Destination country
• Storage of the goods: warehouse/freezone/Economic Processing Zone (EPZ)
• Name of the warehouse
Container numbers are not captured in the customs database.
OLAF requested the Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau to provide such data in respect of all shipments concerned by this investigation. OLAF addressed the related letter on 09.08.2013 to the Director-General of the DFT, the coordinating authority in Thailand as regards OLAF origin investigations, with copy to the Director-General of Royal Thai Customs in Bangkok. This letter is registered under Thor(2013) 20615 of 14.08.2013 and attached as Annex 6 to this mission report.
(…)
Based on a random check by the Laem Chabang Port Customs Bureau in respect of some consignments, Customs could identify through which warehouses the companies mentioned in subheadlng 1.1.1. trafficked their consignments.
The warehouse of [E] Ltd (hereafter [E] ) was used by:
•
•
• [A]
•
•
•
• [B] .
(…)
Based on the number of consignments concerned in relation to each company, considering the location of the warehouses concerned and due to time constraints the mission team decided to focus on the following warehouses in the course of this mission: [E] , […]
Visit warehouse [E] on 06.08.2013 and 09.08.2013
(…)
[E] provided inventories for [A] , […]
OLAF compared the inventories with the customs import/export listing received in April and May 2013 and the extracts from the OLAF master database. During this exercise, it was established that the [A] inventory also includes consignments imported/exported by [C] […] [B] (…). Therefore, it is concluded that those 6 companies are in fact one and the same company.
The [E] inventories refer to all relevant details of the consignments as referred to in the customs import/export listing (see visit report). OLAF therefore could match the imports and exports as recorded in the customs data with their movement through the warehouse. To demonstrate this link identified between the consignments imported from the PR China into Thailand, their export from Thailand to the EU and the import into the EU, OLAF added two more columns (‘Reference [E] Inventory IN’ and ‘Reference [E] Inventory OUT’ or “Reference warehouse listings - IN” and “Reference warehouse listings - OUT) in the listings extracted from the OLAF master database for the companies […] [A] , […], [C] , […] and [B] . These extra columns contain the number of the related import and export consignment as referred to in the [E] inventories.
(…)
The information collected from the warehouse together with the information received from Thai Customs confirms that
• All fasteners imported and re-exported by the companies [A] , […], [C] , […] and [B] through the [E] warehouse originate in the PR China. This is illustrated by the sample documents attached to the visit report. They show that the goods were imported from the PR China and re-exported to the EU (each export declaration has a reference to the corresponding import declaration).
• The goods did not undergo any processing in the warehouse;
• The inventories in relation to the companies [A] (and in addition [C] , […], [B] and […] and […] show the link between the imported Chinese consignment and the exported consignment because the number of the invoice and/or the product code, the description of the goods and the quantity on the import side and the export side are the same. In addition, on the export side and for balancing purposes, [E] made reference to the container number of the imported consignment.
(…)
3 Results
The competent representatives from the warehouses confirmed that the steel fasteners consignments concerned were overseas shipments from the PR China which following cross-stuffing of the fasteners into new containers were shipped onwards to the EU. No processing or manufacturing activities are permitted in the respective warehouses.
In the course of the mission, the warehouse keepers provided OLAF with information in respect of the inbound consignments and the related outbound consignments shipped to the EU.
It is evident from the information received that the steel fasteners consignments concerned originate from the PR China, entered into Thailand under customs procedures exempted from import taxes and duties (bonded warehouse, free zone, economic processing zone) and – following storage – were exported to the EU.
(…)”
5. In een bijlage bij een brief van 28 januari 2013 van Department of Foreign Trade (hierna: DFT) aan OLAF staat onder meer het volgende:
“1.2 [A] .,Ltd The DFT has never issued any GSP-Form
(…) A for these companies. In this circumstance,
(…) it should be considered that GPS-Form A
[B] ., Ltd indicated the name of these 5 companies are forged.””
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.
Belanghebbende heeft alle aangiften gedaan op eigen naam en voor eigen rekening, in opdracht van V.o.f. Polytec International.
Onder verwijzing naar de door de rechtbank aangehaalde missierapporten van OLAF van 14 mei 2013 (missierapport THOR(2013)11786) en 1 april 2014 (missierapport THOR(2014)8967), heeft de inspecteur zich op het standpunt gesteld dat de ingevoerde goederen van Chinese niet-preferentiële oorsprong zijn, zodat op grond van Verordening (EG) nr. 91/2009 van de Raad van 26 januari 2009 tot instelling van een definitief antidumpingrecht op bepaalde soorten ijzeren of stalen bevestigingsmiddelen van oorsprong uit de Volksrepubliek China, een antidumpingrecht van 85% verschuldigd is.
Bij brieven van 14 mei en 21 mei 2014 heeft de inspecteur belanghebbende op de hoogte gesteld van zijn voornemen om voornoemd antidumpingrecht na te vorderen. Bij brief van 28 mei 2014 heeft belanghebbende haar zienswijze betreffende dit voornemen kenbaar gemaakt aan de inspecteur. Met dagtekening 4 juni 2014 heeft de inspecteur de bestreden UTB vastgesteld.