VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Importation of goods EU VAT case law

11 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1982 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 11 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-72/24 Keladis I and Keladis II

Judgment · 29 January 2026 · Greece

Statistical "lowest acceptable price" as basis for import VAT valuation

Threshold prices are usable, but only as a last resort under the fall-back method (Article 31(1) CCC, Article 74(3) UCC), not under the deductive method, and only if the operator was given the opportunity to justify the lower declared prices. Otherwise the practice becomes a prohibited system of minimum values. The underlying imports must be at or about the same time, the 90 day period applying by analogy with reasonable flexibility. Tariff grouping requested by the declarant continues to apply on revaluation. Member States may make the deemed owner liable for import VAT if national law says so explicitly and unequivocally. Relevant to importers of low-value consumer goods, particularly textiles and clothing, and to advisers handling undervaluation audits.

C-368/21 Hauptzollamt Hamburg (Place where VAT is incurred – II)

Judgment · 8 September 2022 · Germany

Place of importation of a vehicle brought in unlawfully

The place of importation is the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with the customs obligations resides and actually uses the vehicle. Physical entry into the European Union and first use in another Member State are not decisive where that use served merely to move the vehicle to its final destination for actual and permanent use. A vehicle cannot be "consumed". Residence of the user is an indicator of where it enters the economic network. Confirms and extends Hauptzollamt Münster (C-7/20).

C-26/18 Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung

Judgment · 10 July 2019 · Germany

Place of import VAT where customs irregularities occur in a transit Member State

The first question was inadmissible as hypothetical, since the goods demonstrably entered the economic network. On the second, customs infringements in a Member State which generate a customs debt there do not suffice to locate entry into the Union economic network in that State. The presumption of entry where goods are unlawfully introduced or removed from supervision is rebuttable. Where the goods are shown to have been carried onwards to another Member State, their final destination, and consumed there, import VAT arises only in that latter State.

C-273/16 Federal Express Europe

Judgment · 4 October 2017 · Italy

Exemption of transport services ancillary to exempt imports

Such national legislation is precluded. Where transport costs are included in the taxable amount under Article 86(1)(b), the ancillary supply follows the tax treatment of the import and is exempt under Article 144, even if no VAT was in fact levied at the customs stage. The exemption serves technical simplification, not the avoidance of double taxation. The extra Italian condition would deprive it of effect for consignments of negligible value or of a non-commercial character. Confirms that a carrier or express operator handling a low-value or non-commercial consignment charges no VAT on transport already included in the import taxable amount, whatever the import VAT position.

C-288/16 L.Č.

Judgment · 29 June 2017 · Latvia

Exemption for transport services subcontracted to another carrier

The exemption does not apply where the transport services relating to the movement of goods to a third country are not supplied directly to the consignor or the consignee. A direct connection requires two things: the service must by its subject matter contribute to the actual performance of the export or import, and it must be supplied directly to the exporter, importer or consignee. Being necessary to the export is not enough. A broad reading would conflict with the straightforward application of exemptions under Article 131. Subcontracted haulage in export and transit chains is taxable at the standard rate when invoiced to the principal carrier or freight forwarder rather than to the consignor, consignee, exporter or importer.

C-226/14 Eurogate Distribution and DHL Hub Leipzig

Judgment · 2 June 2016 · Germany

Import VAT where a customs debt arises from a procedural breach on re-exported goods

No import VAT is due. The goods remained under customs warehousing or external transit until re-exportation and left the arrangement only because of it, so there was no importation under Article 2. That holds even though an Article 204 customs debt was incurred, the breach here being discovered after re-export, with no risk of entry into the EU economic network. Nobody is liable for the VAT, so the question of the debtor does not arise. Article 236 does not apply to VAT repayments.

C-79/12 Mora IPR

Judgment · 21 February 2013 · Romania

A certificate may be required for deferred payment of import VAT

The Court holds that Article 211 does not preclude such legislation, provided the conditions for obtaining the certificate respect the principle of fiscal neutrality, which is for the referring court to verify. Member States determine the detailed rules for payment on importation, and a certificate scheme falls within that competence so long as it does not treat comparable operators differently. The second question was declared inadmissible. Useful where a client is refused access to a national postponed accounting or deferment scheme.

C-228/09 Commission v Poland

Judgment · 20 May 2010 · Poland

Poland could include its registration duty in the taxable amount for cars

The Court dismisses the action. Poland did not infringe those provisions by including the duty in the taxable amount. The duty is a charge borne in connection with the transaction rather than a sum paid in the name and for the account of the customer, so it falls within the taxes, duties, levies and charges that Article 78 requires to be included. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs. A useful contrast with De Danske Bilimportorer, where the Danish registration duty stayed outside the taxable amount.

C-230/08 Dansk Transport og Logistik

Judgment · 29 April 2010

Smuggled goods seized and destroyed, and where the import VAT falls due

The Court held that for goods seized by the authorities after their irregular introduction, that is from the moment they left the area in which the first customs office inside the territory is situated, and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by those authorities without ever ceasing to be in their possession, the chargeable event for VAT occurs and the tax becomes chargeable, even if the goods are subsequently placed under a customs procedure. It further held that Articles 202, 215(1) and (3) and 217 of the Customs Code and Articles 7(2) and 10(3) of the Sixth Directive mean that the authorities of the Member State situated at the external frontier through which the goods were irregularly introduced are competent to recover the customs debt and the VAT, even where the goods were afterwards carried to another Member State and there discovered and seized. Excise duty, by contrast, is recoverable by the authorities of that latter Member State provided the goods are held there for commercial purposes, which is for the referring court to determine. The judgment separates three charges that arise on the same physical movement and does not align them.

C-39/85 Bergeres-Becque v Service interrégional des douanes

Judgment · 23 January 1986 · France

Residual VAT relief on a second-hand car imported as a gift

No distinction is to be made between transactions for consideration and gifts. The chargeable event on importation is entry of the goods, whether or not there is any transaction. The taxable amount excludes the export State VAT still embodied in the value of the goods, and that value is determined on the basis of data valid in the Member State of export, not the importing State's second-hand price levels. The residual amount equals the VAT actually paid on export, reduced proportionately where the value has depreciated, in full where it has increased. Confirms that customs authorities cannot value privately imported second-hand goods by reference to domestic market quotations, and cannot deny residual VAT relief because the importer paid nothing. Relevant to advisers handling private cross-border movements of used vehicles and to any assessment practice that equates the VAT base with a domestically derived customs value.

C-15/81 Schul

Judgment · 5 May 1982 · Netherlands

VAT on goods imported from another Member State supplied by a private individual

Not a charge equivalent to a customs duty. The tax forms part of a general system of internal taxation. But it breaches Article 95 in so far as no account is taken of the residual VAT paid in the exporting Member State still incorporated in the goods' value on importation. That residue must be deducted, capped at the VAT actually paid there. Article 2(2) of the Sixth Directive remains valid, read consistently with that obligation. Article 95 is directly effective. The importer bears the burden of proof. Establishes that importation VAT on goods coming from private individuals must be reduced by the residual VAT embedded from the exporting State, a foundational precedent for the taxation of second-hand goods moving between private persons and for the neutrality principle generally.

Related topics

Customs union · Customs Code · Persons liable for payment of VAT · Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of VAT · Import or export procedures · Exemptions on importation and exportation · Own resources of the European Union · Customs value · External transit procedure · Supply of goods or services