Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement EU VAT case law

4 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2018 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 138 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions related to the supply of goods · 2 of these cases
Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 2 of these cases
Article 141 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for intra-Community acquisitions of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 20 of Directive 2006/112/EC Intra-Community acquisition of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 1 of these cases
Article 143 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions on importation · 1 of these cases

The 4 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.

T-614/25 Trading 4

Judgment · 9 September 2026 · Latvia

Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport, triangular transaction, excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement, Articles 138(1), 141 and 197(1) of the VAT Directive

Those three circumstances do not, in themselves, exempt the supply made by the taxable person registered in the first Member State to the intermediary acquiring the goods and registered in the second. The third question was held inadmissible. The simplification arrangement in Article 141 concerns the intermediaries established in the second Member State, whereas the dispute concerns the application of Article 138(1), read in the light of Article 141, to the transactions carried out by Trading 4 in the first Member State, so the question bears no relation to the subject matter of the main proceedings. The judgment keeps the ascription of the single transport as the operative question in a chain, and refuses to let three surrounding facts stand in for it. It reaches fuel and other excise goods moving under suspension, where the duty arrangement and the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods run on separate tracks.

C-401/18 Herst

Judgment · 23 April 2020 · Czechia

Ascribing the intra-Community transport in a fuel chain under duty suspension

Such a person acquires the right to dispose of the goods as owner provided it can take decisions capable of affecting their legal situation, notably the decision to sell. Its initial intention to purchase after release for free circulation is one factor in the national court's overall assessment of which acquisition the single transport is ascribed to. Duty suspension is not decisive. EU law precludes reliance on in dubio mitius to adopt an interpretation the Court has held incompatible with EU law. Confirms and extends AREX CZ for fuel and other excise goods traders.

C-414/17 AREX CZ

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Czechia

Ascribing the transport in chain supplies of excise goods

Article 2(1)(b)(iii) covers only taxable persons whose other intra-Community acquisitions fall outside VAT under Article 3(1). Other taxable persons are dealt with under Article 2(1)(b)(i). Liability for excise duty in the Member State of destination does not make that trader's acquisition the intra-Community one if the single transport cannot be ascribed to it. Movement under duty suspension is not decisive. The usual global assessment applies, turning on when the power to dispose as owner passed relative to the transport. Fuel, alcohol and tobacco chains are analysed for VAT on exactly the same basis as any other chain transaction. Relevant to energy traders, excise warehousekeepers and their advisers reviewing historic and current supply chain structures.

C-108/17 Enteco Baltic

Judgment · 20 June 2018 · Lithuania

Import VAT exemption where the import is followed by an intra-Community supply

Naming a different purchaser is a formal breach only, so the exemption stands where the substantive Article 138(1) conditions are met and the change was notified, unless the importer knowingly participated in evasion or the breach prevents proof. E-AD drafts and CMR notes presented at importation can prove intended dispatch. E-ROR confirmations and reports of receipt can prove actual dispatch, including to a warehouse rather than the buyer. Good faith protects the importer unless he knew or should have known of the purchaser's fraud. Electronic communication alone proves nothing. Authorities need not gather information themselves. Relevant to fuel and commodity traders using customs procedure 42, and to their customs and excise advisers.