Incurrence of a customs debt EU VAT case law

7 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2013 to 2025.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 5 of these cases
Article 71 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 3 of these cases
Article 70 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 3 of these cases
Article 203 of Directive 2006/112/EC Persons liable for payment of VAT to the tax authorities · 2 of these cases
Article 61 of Directive 2006/112/EC Place of importation of goods · 2 of these cases
Article 156 of Directive 2006/112/EC Customs warehouses, warehouses other than customs warehouses and similar arrangements · 2 of these cases
Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC Origin and scope of right of deduction · 2 of these cases
Article 143 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions on importation · 1 of these cases

The 7 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-125/24 Palmstråle

Judgment · 12 June 2025 · Sweden

Reimportation exemption and breach of customs formalities

Failure to comply with formal obligations, presentation to customs and declaration for release for free circulation, does not preclude the exemption in Article 143(1)(e) for goods reimported in the state in which they were exported. Article 86(6) extends the returned goods relief to customs debts arising under Article 79, and would otherwise be deprived of effect. The qualification is that the exemption is lost where the failure constitutes an attempt at deception, and the national court must verify good faith and mere negligence. Assessments of import VAT founded purely on missed customs formalities on reimportation are open to challenge where the substantive conditions of Article 203 UCC are satisfied and there is no attempt at deception. Relevant to owners and handlers of goods temporarily taken outside the European Union, notably horses, artworks, exhibition goods, tools and equipment, and to their customs agents.

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-571/15 Wallenborn Transports

Judgment · 1 June 2017 · Germany

Import VAT on goods removed from customs supervision in a free zone

Free zones fall within the situations referred to in Article 156, so goods placed there are not in principle imported for VAT purposes. Removal from customs supervision in a free zone does not trigger import VAT unless the goods entered the economic network of the European Union. Entry is presumed where the goods leave the zone, but here the national court must verify that they did not. Article 204 cannot be invoked where Article 203 applies, solely to found a VAT charge. Confirms that a customs debt in a free zone does not automatically carry import VAT.

C-154/16 Latvijas Dzelzceļš

Judgment · 18 May 2017 · Latvia

Import VAT on goods destroyed under external transit

Article 203(1) does not apply where destruction or irretrievable loss is proven to a satisfactory standard. Such goods cannot enter the EU economic network. Article 204(1)(a) applies instead, so a customs debt arises in principle for the part not produced intact, unless the national court finds force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances under Article 206(1). Import VAT, however, is not due on the destroyed or irretrievably lost part, because those goods cannot be integrated into the EU economy and so are not imported. The principal remains liable. Customs need not pursue the carrier. Confirms a clean split between customs duty and import VAT on transit shortfalls.

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-187/14 DSV Road

Judgment · 25 June 2015 · Denmark

Import VAT deduction by the carrier under a transit procedure

No customs debt arises under Article 203 merely from the return and non-presentation, provided the same goods were later carried to destination under a correctly discharged second procedure. If identity cannot be established, a debt arises. Late presentation under the second procedure triggers Article 204 unless Article 356(3), or the no obvious negligence and reasonable time conditions in Article 859, are met. Article 168(e) does not preclude refusing deduction to a carrier that is neither importer nor owner. The value of the goods is not a cost component of its transport charges. Confirms that freight forwarders and hauliers made liable for import VAT under national law cannot deduct it where they merely transport the goods and handle customs formalities, since the goods' value does not enter their pricing. Relevant to logistics operators in Member States designating carriers as persons liable on importation.

C-273/12 Harry Winston

Judgment · 11 July 2013 · France

Theft of goods from a customs warehouse, customs debt and import VAT

Theft of warehoused goods is an unlawful removal from customs supervision under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code and gives rise to a customs debt. Article 206 applies only where a debt would arise under Articles 202 or 204(1)(a), so force majeure is irrelevant here. Because customs duties become chargeable, the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of the VAT Directive applies and import VAT becomes chargeable at the same moment. British American Tobacco concerned supplies, not importation, and does not transpose. Operators of customs warehouses and their customers cannot rely on force majeure, or on the theft case law on supplies, to escape import VAT when goods disappear from a suspensive regime. Relevant to high value goods sectors (jewellery, tobacco, electronics), warehousekeepers, logistics providers and their insurers.