Scales Of Justice Are Out Of Kilter
< continued from page one
...all has to ask the question why on earth this dispute took three years to get to the tribunal?
The first consignment was imported early in 2003 (or before – the date of entry is not recorded) and the particular EU Regulation (2782/76) requires that ‘The importer of preferential sugar originating in India shall, in addition, submit to the Customs authorities of the Community a voucher duly endorsed by the competent authority of India. This voucher shall bear one of the following endorsements: Regulation (EEC) No: 2782/76 refers.’ I’m only recording what the judgement says – it doesn’t make sense to me either.
The entry was processed manually by Customs but the requirement for the endorsement was not pointed out to Catering Services. However, the importer did write to Customs at the end of April 2003 to say that it was attempting to obtain the required certificate from the Indian authority. It would seem from my reading of the case that Catering Services was not aware that this endorsement was ‘worth’ nearly £21,000 in Customs charges.
Three other consignments were then imported later in 2003 by which time Regulation 2782/76 had been superseded by Regulation 1159/03. Article 13 of this Regulation requires that ‘Import licence applications and licences shall contain the following entries… (a) in box 20, at least one of the following entries: – Application of Regulation (EC) No: 1159/2003, No:… (ACP-India preferential sugar No: 09.4321).’ Additionally, Article 15 of the same Regulation requires that a supplementary document has to be provided containing the same wording. In case you think I understand what Regulation 1159/03 is saying – I don’t.
Despite obtaining nearly all the required evidence, the importer failed in his task of obtaining the additional statements. Again, the consignments were manually cleared by Customs but the error... continued on page three >
<< Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page >>
Advertisement
Advertisement