On 12 December 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgment in the case C‑781/23, which has implications for businesses importing goods under temporary admission. The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) and involved Malmö Motorrenovering AB and Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket.
 
Background of the Case
 
The central issue in this case was the interpretation of Article 251 of the Union Customs Code (UCC). The dispute revolved around the temporary admission procedure, specifically the period during which goods imported under that procedure may remain.
 
Key Findings of the Judgment
 
The ECJ examined whether the period allowed for the temporary admission of a racing car was sufficient and considered the conditions for extending that period. The court concluded that the period allowed was insufficient to achieve the objective of its authorized use. It ruled that an extension of that period should be granted if needed for the authorized use in question. The court made particularly clear that exceptional circumstances, as mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 251 UCC, is not preconditioned for extensions that still fall within the 24 month period stipulated in the second paragraph of that Article.
 
Furthermore, the judgment reminds businesses involved in importing goods under temporary admission that:
 
1. Importers should ensure that they have sufficient time to regularize a special customs procedure such as temporary admission in their authorization. This is crucial to avoid potential issues with customs authorities and to ensure compliance with EU customs regulations.
2. If importers find themselves in a situation where they have not complied with the period allowed for temporary admission, they could still consider invoking Article 124(1)(h) UCC. This provision may provide solace by offering a potential remedy for non-compliance if:
a) the error had no significant effect on the correct operation of the customs procedure concerned
b) the matter did not involve deception; and
c) all the formalities necessary to regularize the situation are carried out.
 
For more detailed information, you can refer to the full judgment on the EUR-Lex website.

Author

Amsterdam