Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 17-12-2019, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:4445, 18/00134 tot en met 18/00137
Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 17-12-2019, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:4445, 18/00134 tot en met 18/00137
Gegevens
- Instantie
- Gerechtshof Amsterdam
- Datum uitspraak
- 17 december 2019
- Datum publicatie
- 25 december 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:4445
- Formele relaties
- Cassatie: ECLI:NL:HR:2022:658
- Zaaknummer
- 18/00134 tot en met 18/00137
Inhoudsindicatie
Douanerechten; artikel 78 CDW; wijziging aangifte; verdedigingsbeginsel; oorsprong; artikel 220, lid 2, letter b, CDW.
Uitspraak
kenmerken 18/00134 t/m 18/00137
17 december 2019
uitspraak van de meervoudige douanekamer
op het hoger beroep van
[X] B.V., gevestigd te [Z] , belanghebbende,
gemachtigde: mr. ing. B.J.B. Boersma
alsmede op het incidenteel hoger beroep van
de inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/douane, de inspecteur,
tegen de uitspraak van 12 februari 2018 in de zaak met kenmerken HAA 16/739 tot en met HAA 16/742 van de rechtbank Noord-Holland (hierna: de rechtbank) in het geding tussen
belanghebbende
en
de inspecteur
en
de Staat der Nederlanden (de Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid).
1 Ontstaan en loop van het geding
De inspecteur heeft met dagtekening 31 juli 2014 aan belanghebbende een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: utb 1) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 128.687,51 aan antidumpingrechten en een bedrag van € 25.968,36 aan douanerechten.
De inspecteur heeft met dagtekening 6 maart 2015 aan belanghebbende een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: utb 2) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 20.459,14 aan antidumpingrechten en een bedrag van € 4.128,53 aan douanerechten.
De inspecteur heeft met dagtekening 8 april 2015 aan belanghebbende een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: utb 3) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 10.391,35 aan antidumpingrechten en een bedrag van € 2.096,91 aan douanerechten.
De inspecteur heeft met dagtekening 29 mei 2015 aan belanghebbende een uitnodiging tot betaling (hierna: utb 4) uitgereikt voor een bedrag van € 9.763,16 aan antidumpingrechten en een bedrag van € 1.970,15 aan douanerechten.
Belanghebbende heeft bezwaar ingediend tegen de hiervoor genoemde utb’s. De inspecteur heeft in één geschrift, met dagtekening 14 januari 2016, de bezwaren tegen de utb’s ongegrond verklaard en de utb’s gehandhaafd.
Belanghebbende heeft beroep ingesteld. Bij uitspraak van 12 februari 2018 heeft de rechtbank als volgt beslist:
“De rechtbank:
- verklaart de beroepen ongegrond;
- draagt de griffier op het beroepschrift op de voet van artikel 6:15, tweede lid, van de Awb door te zenden aan verweerder ter behandeling als bezwaarschrift tegen de beslissing op de drie verzoeken om terugbetaling ex artikel 239 van het CDW;
- veroordeelt verweerder in de proceskosten van eiseres tot een bedrag van € 2.250;
- draagt verweerder op het betaalde griffierecht van € 334 aan eiseres te vergoeden.”
Het tegen deze uitspraak ingestelde hoger beroep is bij het Hof ingekomen op 26 maart 2018. De inspecteur heeft in één geschrift een verweerschrift en incidenteel hoger beroep ingediend op 27 juni 2018. Belanghebbende heeft bij brief van 8 november 2018 gereageerd op het incidenteel hoger beroep. Belanghebbende heeft op 13 september 2019 een nader stuk ingediend.
Het onderzoek ter zitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 24 september 2019. Verschenen zijn de gemachtigde voornoemd en, namens de inspecteur, [medewerker belastingdienst 1] en [medewerker belastingdienst 2] . Van het verhandelde ter zitting is een proces-verbaal opgemaakt dat met deze uitspraak wordt meegezonden.
2 Feiten
De rechtbank heeft de navolgende feiten vastgesteld. Belanghebbende wordt daarin aangeduid als ‘eiser’, de inspecteur als ‘verweerder’.
“Feiten
HAA 16/739 [Hof: betreft utb 1]
Eiseres heeft in de periode 10 augustus 2011 tot en met 10 oktober 2012
13 aangiften gedaan voor de douaneregeling brengen in het vrije verkeer voor andere wielen van aluminium. De goederen zijn aangegeven onder de GN-code 8708 70 50 10. Eiseres heeft hierbij verzocht om toepassing van een preferentiële tariefmaatregel en heeft daarbij certificaten van oorsprong, formulieren A, overgelegd waarop als land van oorsprong Maleisië is vermeld.
Op de formulieren A staat in vak 11. Certification een stempel van “Ministry of International Trade and Industry” (hierna: MITI) van Maleisië. Als exporteur is vermeld [A bedrijf] , [B bedrijf] , [C bedrijf] of [D bedrijf] en als ontvanger is vermeld [E bedrijf] .
Volgens de aangiften zijn de goederen vervoerd per containers met de nummers [B nummers] . Als koper is vermeld [E bedrijf] dan wel [F bedrijf] en als verkoper is vermeld [A bedrijf] , [B bedrijf] of [C bedrijf] . Op één aangifte ontbreekt de naam van de verkoper.
HAA 16/740 [Hof: betreft utb 2]
Eiseres heeft op 21 mei 2012 en 26 juni 2012 twee aangiften gedaan voor de douaneregeling brengen in het vrije verkeer voor andere wielen van aluminium. De goederen zijn aangegeven onder de GN-code 8708 70 50 10. Eiseres heeft hierbij verzocht om toepassing van een preferentiële tariefmaatregel en heeft daarbij certificaten van oorsprong, formulieren A, overgelegd waarop als land van oorsprong Maleisië is vermeld.
Op de formulieren A staat in vak 11. Certification een stempel van MITI van Maleisië. Als exporteur is vermeld [B bedrijf] en als ontvanger is vermeld [F bedrijf] .
Volgens de aangiften zijn de goederen vervoerd per containers met de nummers [C nummer] en [D nummer] . Als koper is vermeld [F bedrijf] en als verkoper [B bedrijf] .
HAA 16/741 [Hof: betreft utb 3]
Eiseres heeft op 12 april 2012 aangifte gedaan voor de douaneregeling brengen in het vrije verkeer voor andere wielen van aluminium. De goederen zijn aangegeven onder de GN-code 8708 70 50 10. Eiseres heeft hierbij verzocht om toepassing van een preferentiële tariefmaatregel en heeft daarbij een certificaten van oorsprong, formulier A, overgelegd waarop als land van oorsprong Maleisië is vermeld.
Op het formulier A staat in vak 11. Certification een stempel van MITI van Maleisië. Als exporteur is vermeld [G bedrijf] en als ontvanger is vermeld [H bedrijf] .
Volgens de aangifte zijn de goederen vervoerd per container met het nummer [E nummer] . Op de aangifte is als koper vermeld [E bedrijf] en als verkoper [H bedrijf] .
HAA 16/742 [Hof: betreft utb 4]
Eiseres heeft op 20 november 2012 aangifte gedaan voor de douaneregeling brengen in het vrije verkeer voor andere wielen van aluminium. De goederen zijn aangegeven onder de GN-code 8708 70 50 10. Eiseres heeft hierbij verzocht om toepassing van een preferentiële tariefmaatregel en heeft daarbij een certificaten van oorsprong, formulier A, overgelegd waarop als land van oorsprong Maleisië is vermeld.
Op het formulier A staat in vak 11. Certification een stempel van MITI van Maleisië. Als exporteur is vermeld [I bedrijf] en als ontvanger is vermeld [F bedrijf] .
Volgens de aangifte zijn de goederen vervoerd per container met het nummer [F nummer] . Op de aangifte is als koper [F bedrijf] vermeld en als verkoper [I bedrijf] .
Alle zaken
5. Tot de stukken van het geding behoort een brief van de antifraudedienst van de Europese Unie (hierna: OLAF) van 27 mei 2013 aan [persoon A] , werkzaam bij het Douane Informatiecentrum. In deze brief is - voor zover van belang - het volgende vermeld:
“(…)
In 2012, following allegations received from the Customs administration of Ireland, Lithuania and Germany, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened the investigation OF 2012/0216 concerning the suspected evasion of customs and anti-dumping duties (ADD) on imports into the European Union (EU) of certain aluminum road wheels (ARWs) from Malaysia with preferential customs treatment (GSP).
It is suspected that the ARWs actually originate from the PR China and, by misdescribing the origin, the EU importers evade the EU anti-dumping duties imposed on the Chinese product. Moreover, the imports of ARWs into the EU are presented to Customs in the Member States accompanied by Malaysian certificates of preferential origin Form A, thus fraudulently benefiting from the preferential regime, i.e. a zero duty rate instead of the conventional third country duty rate of 4.5% ad valorem.
Then, within the framework of this investigation and under the provisions laid down in the Scheme of Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) mentioned above, OLAF requested the assistance from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Malaysia (MITI) in identifying the suspected irregularities and to establish the real origin of the ARWs supplied by the Malaysian companies involved in this trafficking.
Following OLAFs request for assistance, in January 2013 MITI sent to OLAF an import-export ZB1/ZB2 database in the format of an excel file. This ZB1/ZB2 database relates to transshipments of ARWs from the PR China to the EU carried out in the Free Commercial Zone in Port Klang Free, from May 2010 to November 2012.
In parallel, in August 2012 OLAF requested all MS by the Mutual Assistance message AM 2012/014 to identity consignments of ARWs imported from Malaysia. Upon this request, the Dutch Customs informed OLAF of the identification of 131 imports (144-containers) into Netherlands of the product concerned with origin declared as Malaysia.
Hence, OLAF has carried out a preliminary cross-check of all data obtained from the
Malaysian authorities concerning transshipments of ARWs originating from the PR China via the Free Commercial Zone of Port Klang, Malaysia, to the EU with the data on imports of ARWs into the EU provided by the Member States.
In the case of the Netherlands, OLAF has linked 89 consignments imported into Netherlands with transshipments of ARWs from the PR China to the EU carried out via the Port Klang Free Commercial Zone (PKA-ZB1/ZB2). Both an extract of these matched consignments and the electronic version of the entire data match of ZB1/ZB2/NL-imports are annexed to this letter. (…)”
6. Tot de stukken van het geding behoort tevens een brief van OLAF van 28 juni 2013 aan [persoon A] , werkzaam bij het Douane Informatiecentrum. In deze brief is - voor zover van belang - het volgende vermeld:
“(…)
Now, I am writing to you to transmit 60 additional containers of ARWs also imported in the Netherlands from the PR China following transhipment carried Out via the Port Klang Free Commercial Zone (PKA-ZB1/ZB2). An extract of these additional 58 matched containers is annexed to this letter and both, the entire data on transhipments provided by the Port Klang Free Commercial Zone Authority via MITI and the electronic version of the entire data match of ZB1/ZB2/NL-imports are sent together with this letter in a CD format.
(…)
In addition, the main Malaysian exporters shown on the certificates of preferential Malaysian origin FORM A presented at importation to the Dutch customs are [C bedrijf] , [J bedrijf] , [A bedrijf] and [K bedrijf] companies.
(…)
The evidence provided by MITI shows that the Chinese ARWs were shipped from the PR China to the Free Commercial Zone of Port Klang, Malaysia, and - after reloading - were consigned onward to the EU. The ARWs were not subject to any processing or transformation activity in the Free Commercial Zone. Such activities are not allowed in the Zone - unless approved by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the ARWs imported into Netherlands do not qualify for preferential treatment at importation as they retained their Chinese origin. Consequently, they are liable to the payment of conventional customs duties of 4.5 % and anti-dumping duty of 20.6 % from May to October 2010 and 22.3% from October 2010 onwards.
(…)”
7. Tot de stukken van het geding behoort een Mission Report van de OLAF van 24 juni 2014, OF/2012/0216/B1. De OLAF heeft van 25 tot 29 november 2013 een onderzoek uitgevoerd in Maleisië. Het onderzoek is begeleid en ondersteund door het MITI, de Port Klang Authority en de Royal Malaysian Customs. In het rapport is - voor zover van belang - het volgende vermeld:
“(…)
1. Purpose of the mission
This investigation concerns the alleged evasion of conventional customs and anti-dumping duties (ADD) applicable on imports into the European Union (EU) of aluminum road wheels (ARW) declared as originating from Malaysia but suspected to originate in the People’s Republic of China (PR China).
The objective of the investigation is to prove or disprove the preferential origin of the goods concerned and, if not originating in Malaysia, to establish the true origin of the goods. To that end, to obtain evidence showing the link between imports of the product concerned into Malaysia from the PR China and its onward shipment/re-exportation to the EU with a view to recovering the own resources (conventional customs and anti-dumping duties) evaded by the EU importers concerned. Furthermore, to obtain evidence proven the involvement and knowledge of the EU-importers of the true origin of the goods concerned.
(…)
Summary of the investigation prior the mission
In March 2012, OLAF was informed by various Member States (MS) that trade measures (anti-dumping duties) imposed on imports of ARW originating in the PR China were being evaded through Malaysia. It was alleged that Chinese producers set up intermediary companies in Malaysia (facilitators, shell companies), the task of which was to re-pack ARW or simply to change a container and to ship the product to the EU.
It was further suspected that the importers in the EU incorrectly declared the ARW as originating in Malaysia with a view to misleading the customs authorities in the MS in order to evade the ADD. Moreover, they presented Generalised System Preference (GSP) certificates of origin Form A to customs in the MS thus also benefitting from the preferential rate of 0% instead of 4.5% conventional customs duty granted by the EU to Malaysia. Many of these certificates of preferential origin FORM A had been verified by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) in the meantime and found to be non-authentic.
(…)
3. Results
Information received
The information received in the course of the mission followed-up on the electronic data (e-data) already received in January 2013 from MITI, prior to the mission. In addition and after the mission, in March 2014 the Port Klang Authority provided a third set of e-data related to ZB1-ZB2 (import-export). For reasons of clarity, the three sets of information, obtained prior, during and after the mission, are jointly presented in this mission report. As mentioned above, the transmission of information and documentation from the Port Klang Authority and Malaysian Customs took place via MITI.
Information provided by the Port Klang Authority
On 26th November 2013, the mission team visited the Port Klang Free Commercial Zone and held a meeting with representatives of the Port Klang Authorities.
The Port Klang Authority manages the Free Commercial Zone (FCZ) in Port Klang. Any goods entering into or departing from the seaport in Port Klang physically move via the FCZ. Therefore, any transhipment also passes through this area. In addition, any form of manufacturing activity is forbidden there. Therefore, no origin conferring manufacture or processing can take place there and the goods transhipped through the FCZ in Port Klang retain their primary origin.
The goods entering the FCZ in Port Klang from overseas are recorded in the ZB1 (import) registry. The goods departing from the FCZ in Port Klang to overseas are recorded in the ZB2 (export) registry (noot: Whereas, goods imported or exported directly from the Principal Customs Area of Malaysia are not to be recorded in the ZB1 and/or ZB2 registries. They are recorded in the K1 (import) and K2 (export) customs registries). If goods, being transhipped, leave from the FCZ in Port Klang to overseas, the shipper is obliged to lodge a ZB2 declaration, in which the number of the corresponding ZB1 declaration has to be specified. Consequently, if goods are registered in the ZB1 (import) registry and subsequently in the ZB2 (export) registry, they were merely transhipped and retained their primary origin. For further details see the Explanatory Note and four samples of ZB1, ZB2, K1 and K2 forms provided by the Port Klang Authorities, all attached in Annex 2.
(...)
Information provided by Malaysian Customs
(…)
According to MITI, no movements between bonded customs areas (K8) for consignments of ARW were registered. The list of exports from the PCA (K2) to the EU contained only two exports corresponding to 4 containers consigned to Ireland (2) and the Netherlands (2). The commodity code recorded in the export K2 data in respect these 4 containers was 8708 70 990. The two consignors registered in the K2 did not export ARW to the EU before the imposition of ADD on imports of Chinese ARW into the EU.
As regards imports into the PCA (K1), 21 imports of ARW from the PR China were
identified, all classified with CN code 8708 70 990 . All imports of ARW from the PR China into the PCA were carried Out by [A bedrijf] company. Nevertheless, no exports from this company are recorded from the PCA to any EU-countries. On the contrary, [A bedrijf] appears in 42 records of the ZB2 (export) data as consignor/exporter of Chinese ARW transhipped through the PK-FCZ to the EU. See more details at point 3.2
(...)
Such parallel registration of the very same consignments is a contradiction as
all consignments of ARW recorded in the ZB1/ZB2 registries of the FCZ as inward (ZB1) and outward (ZB2) movements had entered the FCZ coming from the PR China and had remained there until exported. Therefore, they had not been exported from the Malaysian customs territory and, consequently, the export declarations concerned do not reflect real exports from Malaysia. See the Explanatory Note attached in Annex 2.
It appears that these export declarations were done to mislead the authorities by falsely lending credibility to the origin declared as Malaysia in order to facilitate obtaining GSP certificates of Malaysian preferential origin from MITI.
(...)
Information provided by MITI
(…)
Based on the analysis of data provided to OLAF by MITI prior the mission, the mission team presented its findings as regards the consignments of ARW found to be imported from PR China into the FCZ in Port Klang and, afterwards, shipped onward to the EU. All containers found to be transhipped from PR China to the EU through the PK-FCZ were imported into the EU with preferential certificates of origin FORM A.
(...)
The Principal Director Assistant responsible for the issuance of certificates of preferential origin FORM A, checked in MITI records in respect of the companies shown in this list mentioned before and confirmed the issuing of certificates of preferential origin to 5 companies: [gezwart] [B bedrijf] [gezwart] Industries, [gezwart] Industries, [gezwart] Manufacturer and [gezwart] Industries up to December 2011 when company ceased its business.
The remaining Malaysian companies referred to in the list mentioned before were not found at the MITI registry and consequently, there are no records of preferential Malaysian origin certificates FORM A issued to these companies. See point 3.2 of this report.
However, despite of the fact that a total of 778 containers imported into the EU were
found to be actually transshipped from the PR China to the EU through the FCZ in Port Klang, another approximately 1.000 containers of ARW imported into the EU from May 2010 to December 2012 have not been found as recorded in either the ZB2 (exports from Free Commercial Zone) or the K2 exports from the Principal Customs Area) so far. According to the commercial documentation presented to Customs in the EU at importation, most of these remaining 1.000 containers were supplied by one company [gezwart] SDN BHD (gezwart).
(...)
Conclusions
Based on the information and e-data provided by MITI, Port Klang Authorities and Royal Malaysian Customs (3 ZB1-ZB-2 e-data) merged into one file namely OLAF_ZB1_ZB2), it has been established the following,
i. a total of 904 containers of ARW imported into the PK-FCZ trom PR China were shipped onward from PK-FCZ to 18 MS as follows: Belgium (39), Cyprus (2), Czech Republic (10), Denmark (5), Finland (7), France (7), Germany (103), Greece (2), Italy (66), Latvia (9) Lithuania (113), Malta (1), the Netherlands (229), Poland (7), Romania (1), Spain (9), Sweden (14) and the United Kingdom (280). 778 of these 904 containers exported from PK-FCZ have been matched with the corresponding importation into these 18 MS,
ii. all consignments of ARW exported from the Free Commercial Zone in Port Klang
originated from the PR China (see column F ‘country of origin’ in excel files at Annexes 2 to 4);
iii. all consignments imported from the PR China into the FCZ in Port Klang were
cross-stuffed into different containers before onward shipment to the EU. They were not subject to any processing or manufacturing activity in the FCZ in Port Klang. Such activities are not allowed in the FCZ;
iv. the HS commodity codes applicable for ARW are 8708 70 10 and ex 8708 70 50. At importation into the EU, the product was declared under commodity codes 8708 70 50 10 and 8708 70 90 . According to the ZB2 data provided by the Port Klang Authority, the ARW exported from PK-FCZ were classified under the commodity codes: 8708 10 900, 8708 30 900, 8708 70 190, 8708 70 990, 8708 79 000, 8707 99 110, 878 99 190, 8708 99 930, 8708 99 990 (see column B ‘tc code’ in excel files at Annexes 2 to 4);
v. moreover, it has been found that consignments of ARW were wrongly classified
at exportation from the PK-FCZ under commodity codes: 8714 99 990, 8302 49 900, 7616 99 900, 7606 91 000 and 6911 10 000 . However, in all cases the goods description given in the extracts shows that the goods actualty were ARW;
vi. 22 consignors were identifïed from the ZB2 (export) data. Several of these
consignors registered in the ZB2 data were not the same as the exporters of ARW
declared on importation in the EU and/or shown in the certificates of preferential origin FORM A presented to Customs at importation in the EU They have been found to be mainly forwarding agents and logistics companies. None of these 22 consignors did export ARW to the EU before the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Chinese ARW in May 2010;
vii it has been found that one container of ARW was recorded both in the ZB2 data
as onward shipment from the Free Commercial Zone and also in the K2 data as export from the Principal Customs Area. However, it appears that the sole purpose of such declaration was to mislead the authorities and to claim Malaysian origin for the goods concerned. The economic operator which applied this modus operandi declared different consignors to the Port Klang Authority, Malaysian Customs and to MITI.
Hence, the economic operator prevented the Malaysian authorities, particularly MITI and Malaysian Customs, from detecting the fraud scheme and obtained the GSP certificates on the basis of the false information provided. The economic operators appearing as exporters incorrectly declared the ARW to originate from Malaysia. In addition, the use of different company names prevented MITI, in the course of any subsequent verification of GSP certificates requested by the MS to identify that the consignments covered by authentic and yet incorrect GSP certificates were in fact transhipments of Chinese originating ARW via the FCZ in Port Klang rather than Malaysian originating goods. Consequently, the operators involved made the tracing of any transhipment through the FCZ in Port Klang more difficult. For the same purpose, they also declared wrong commodity codes instead of the ones applicable to ARW.
(...)
In order to summarize the findings per Malaysian exporter, OLAF matched the consignments imported into the EU according to the information provided by MS (approximately 1.800 containers recorded), with the relevant ZB1/ZB2 transhipment data. The matching was carried out on the basis of the container number(s) recorded in the ZB2 (export) and container number(s) recorded in the EU-import data.
As a result, a total of 778 containers of ARW imported into the MS from Malaysia have been linked with their corresponding containers of ARW originating in the PR China and recorded in ZB2 (export) and the preceding shipments from China to Malaysia as recorded in the related ZB1 (import).
(…)”
8. Tot de stukken van het geding behoort een Final Report van de OLAF van 24 november 2014, OF/2012/0216/B1. In het rapport is - voor zover van belang - het volgende vermeld:
“(...)
Recoverability of the evaded duties
The conventional customs and anti-dumping duties on imports of alloy wheels originating in the PR China were evaded by incorrectly declaring the product as having Malaysian preferential origin. The incorrect origin declaration was supported by the presentation for customs purposes of either authentic (but nevertheless incorrect) or forged GSP certificates of preferential Malaysian origin Form A. Both types of duty are recoverable under the provisions of the Community Customs Code and Its implementing Regulations (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as amended). In accordance with Article 221 of the Community Customs Code, communication of the customs debt to the debtor shall not take place after expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred unless this period can be extended In accordance with Article 221 (4).
In accordance with Articles 220 and Article 221 of the Community Customs Code, the customs authorities are obliged to enter the duties evaded into the accounts as soon as they are in the position to calculate the amount legally owed and to determine the debtor. As soon as the debt has been entered in the accounts, the amount of duty shall be communicated to the debtor. In this case the customs debts were incurred on the dates of acceptance of the import declaration of the alloy wheels, i.e., from 11 May 2010 onwards. The notifications providing the relevant evidence were communicated to the Member States concerned between May 2013 and June 2014 (see Mission Report, point 5). Therefore, the duties are mostly within the three year debt communication period and are recoverable.
Preferential origin
The facts established by OLAF and the Malaysian authorities demonstrate that the alloy wheels were neither manufactured nor sufficently worked or processed in Malaysia and therefore do not meet the preferential origin criteria (see point 1.4). Instead, the Chinese alloy wheels were merely transshipped via PK-FCZ. Therefore, in the light of the absence of any (sufficient) manufacturing activity in Malaysia, the Malaysian exporters provided an incorrect account of the facts when applying for the issuance of GSP certificates of preferential origin FORM A, wrongfully claiming that the goods concerned had preferential Malaysian originating status, i.e. were sufficiently worked or processed pursuant to Article 76 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (as amended).
In addition, many of the GSP certificates of origin FORM A had been found to be forged after verification by MITI (see Mission Report).
The authentic GSP certificates of preferential origin FORM A presented at importation into the EU are incorrect and are consequently invalid. These certificates were issued by MITI in good faith as a result of an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporters.
MITI was not aware and could not have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the origin criteria.
Non-preferential origin
The facts as ascertained show that the non-preferential origin criteria were not met either as the Chinese alloy wheels were merely transhipped via the PK-FCZ where they did not undergo any working or processing within the meaning of Article 24 of the Community Customs Code.
The transhipment activities consisted of cross-stuffing the goods upon their arrival from the PR China into new containers and onward shipment to the EU. This took place within the PK-FCZ where manufacture, processing or working of the goods are not permitted.
The only activities allowed in the Free Commercial Zones are direct transhipment,
Consolidation, trading/resale, regional distribution and storage.
(…)
ANNEX 3
OF/2012/0216 FINAL REPORT Estimation of duties to be recovered per Member State
(...)
The Netherlands
According with the information transmitted by the Dutch Customs, 238 imports of alloy wheels (251 containers with origin Malaysian) were identified.
As regards 190 containers, the Chinese origin of the alloy wheels have been established.
(…)
In respect of 54 containers of alloy wheels, the Chinese origin of the alloy wheels have not been established. Further enquiries are necessary. However, the conventional customs duties in respect of 34 containers are recoverable because the certificates of preferential origin FORM A presented at importation have not been issued by MITI. See Mission Report, point 3.2 – [gezwart] “ [B bedrijf] ”, “[gezwart] and “[gezwart]”, pages 14, 15 ,23 and 24 respectively.
(…)”
9. Tot de stukken van het geding behoort een brief van de OLAF van 25 juni 2014, THOR (2014) 17295. In deze brief is - voor zover van belang - het volgende vermeld
“(…)
Please find attached the relevant evidence, Mission Report and annexes, in Annex 1.
(…)”
Met dagtekening 17 juli 2014 heeft verweerder aan eiseres het voornemen tot het uitreiken van utb 1 gezonden.
Met dagtekening 17 februari 2015 heeft verweerder aan eiseres het voornemen tot het uitreiken van utb 2 gezonden.
Met dagtekening 24 maart 2015 heeft verweerder aan eiseres het voornemen tot het uitreiken van utb 3 gezonden.
Met dagtekening 12 mei 2015 heeft verweerder aan eiseres het voornemen tot het uitreiken van utb 4 gezonden.”
Het Hof gaat eveneens uit van deze feiten.
3 Geschil in hoger beroep
In geschil is:
1. of de inspecteur op grond van artikel 78 van het Communautair Douanewetboek (hierna: CDW) gehouden is de litigieuze aangiften zodanig te wijzigen dat niet langer sprake is van aangiften op eigen naam en voor eigen rekening van belanghebbende, maar van aangiften op naam en voor rekening van een ander (directe vertegenwoordiging);
2. of het beginsel van eerbiediging van de rechten van de verdediging geschonden is;
3. of de preferentiële en niet-preferentiële oorsprong van de goederen aannemelijk is gemaakt;
4. of de voorwaarden van artikel 220, lid 2, letter b, van het CDW voor het afzien van navordering zijn vervuld.
Partijen doen hun standpunten steunen op de gronden welke door hen zijn aangevoerd in de van hen afkomstige stukken. Voor hetgeen zij daaraan ter zitting van het Hof hebben toegevoegd wordt verwezen naar het van het verhandelde ter zitting opgemaakte proces-verbaal.