Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 January 2026. – C. sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku.

1

This request for a preliminary ruling, made by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland), concerns the interpretation of Article 2 TEU and of Article 22(3), Article 120(1), and Article 173(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1) (‘the Union Customs Code’).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between C. sp. z o.o. sp.k., a company incorporated under Polish law importing inter alia natural honey, and the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Gdańsku (Director of the Tax Administration Chamber, Gdańsk, Poland) (‘the customs authority’), concerning that authority’s refusal to apply a zero-rate customs duty to goods imported from Ukraine into the European Union by C.

3

Article 15 of the Union Customs Code is worded as follows:

‘…

2.   The lodging of a customs declaration, temporary storage declaration, entry summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification by a person to the customs authorities, or the submission of an application for an authorisation or any other decision, shall render the person concerned responsible for all of the following:

…’

4

Article 22 of the Union Customs Code provides as follows:

‘1.   Where a person applies for a decision relating to the application of the customs legislation, that person shall supply all the information required by the competent customs authorities in order to enable them to take that decision.

A decision may also be applied for by, and taken with regard to, several persons, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the customs legislation.

Except where otherwise provided, the competent customs authority shall be that of the place where the applicant’s main accounts for customs purposes are held or accessible, and where at least part of the activities to be covered by the decision are to be carried out.

…

3.   The competent customs authority shall take a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, and shall notify the applicant without delay, and at the latest within 120 days of the date of acceptance of the application, except where otherwise provided.

Where the customs authorities are unable to comply with the time limit for taking a decision, they shall inform the applicant of that fact before the expiry of that time limit, stating the reasons and indicating the further period of time which they consider necessary in order to take a decision. Except where otherwise provided, that further period of time shall not exceed 30 days.

Without prejudice to the second subparagraph, the customs authorities may extend the time limit for taking a decision, as laid down in the customs legislation, where the applicant requests an extension to carry out adjustments in order to ensure the fulfilment of the conditions and criteria. Those adjustments and the further period of time necessary to carry them out shall be communicated to the customs authorities, which shall decide on the extension.

…’

5

Article 120 of the Union Customs Code is worded as follows:

‘1.   In cases other than those referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 116(1) and in Articles 117, 118 and 119 an amount of import or export duty shall be repaid or remitted in the interest of equity where a customs debt is incurred under special circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the debtor.

2.   The special circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to exist where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the debtor is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business, and that, in the absence of such circumstances, he or she would not have suffered disadvantage by the collection of the amount of import or export duty.’

6

Article 162 of the Union Customs Code is worded as follows:

‘Standard customs declarations shall contain all the particulars necessary for application of the provisions governing the customs procedure for which the goods are declared.’

7

Article 173 of the Union Customs Code is worded as follows:

‘1.   The declarant shall, upon application, be permitted to amend one or more of the particulars of the customs declaration after that declaration has been accepted by customs. The amendment shall not render the customs declaration applicable to goods other than those which it originally covered.

2.   No such amendment shall be permitted where it is applied for after any of the following events:

3.   Upon application by the declarant, within three years of the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, the amendment of the customs declaration may be permitted after release of the goods in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned.’

8

Article 49(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558) provides as follows:

‘Tariff quotas opened in accordance with Union legislation referring to the method of administration in this article and in Articles 50 to 54 of this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of acceptance of customs declarations for release for free circulation.’

9

Article 50 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 provides as follows:

‘1.   The customs authorities shall examine whether a request to benefit from a tariff quota made by the declarant in a customs declaration for release for free circulation is valid in accordance with the Union legislation opening the tariff quota.

2.   Where a customs declaration for release for free circulation containing a valid request by the declarant to benefit from a tariff quota is accepted and all the supporting documents required for the granting of the tariff quota have been provided to the customs authorities, the customs authorities shall transmit that request to the Commission without delay specifying the date of acceptance of the customs declaration and the exact amount for which the request is made.’

10

Article 51(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 provides as follows:

‘For each tariff quota, the Commission shall allocate quantities on the basis of requests to benefit from that tariff quota received by it following the chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the relevant customs declarations, and to the extent that the remaining balance of the tariff quota so permits.’

11

Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1566 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on the introduction of temporary autonomous trade measures for Ukraine supplementing the trade concessions available under the Association Agreement (OJ 2017 L 254, p. 1) provides as follows:

‘1.   In addition to the zero-tariff quotas established by the Association Agreement, the agricultural products listed in Annexes I and II to this Regulation shall be admitted for import into the Union from Ukraine within the limits of Union zero-tariff quotas as set out in those Annexes. Those zero-tariff quotas shall be administered as follows:

…’

12

Annex I to Regulation 2017/1566, entitled ‘Zero-tariff quotas for agricultural products referred to in point (a) of Article 1(1)’, states as follows:

‘Notwithstanding the rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (CN), the wording of the description of the products is to be considered as having no more than an indicative value. For the purposes of this Annex, the scope of the preferential scheme is to be determined by CN codes as they exist on 1 October 2017.’

13

Annex I to Regulation 2017/1566 contains a table which reads as follows:

14

Regulation 2017/1566, authorising inter alia the import into the European Union of honey produced by bees originating in Ukraine, within the limits of the EU zero-tariff quotas set out in Annex I to that regulation, entered into force on 1 October 2017. However, on that date, which was a Sunday, and therefore was not a working day, the corresponding quota number had not been integrated into the European TARIC (Integrated Tariff of the European Union) and the Polish ISZTAR (Integrated Tariff Information System) systems.

15

On 1 October 2017, C. failed in an attempt to submit a customs declaration for honey produced by bees originating in Ukraine, accompanied by a request seeking to benefit from quota No 09.6750, opened in accordance with Regulation 2017/1566, which was made by filling in box No 39 of the customs declaration. On 2 October 2017, once the missing quota number was integrated into the TARIC and ISZTAR systems, C. submitted a customs declaration for the abovementioned goods and requested the application of a zero-rate customs duty by entering quota No 09.6750 in box No 39 of the customs declaration.

16

The Naczelnik Urzędu Celno-Skarbowego w Gdańsku ( Director of the Tax Administration Chamber, Gdańsk, Poland), after checking the customs declaration, found that quota No 09.6750 had been exhausted on the first day of its validity, namely 1 October 2017, and, by an administrative decision of 27 March 2018, set the duties owed by C. at 17.3% in accordance with the erga omnes tariff regime. Following a complaint, the customs authority upheld that decision on 29 August 2018.

17

C. brought an action before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Provincial Administrative Court, Gdańsk, Poland). By judgment of 13 February 2019, that court annulled the decision of the customs authority, ordering it to provide additional evidence and to issue new findings regarding the reasons why the relevant quota number had not been integrated into the IT systems and determination of the time when that problem had arisen; whether the problem had affected all importers of honey from Ukraine; and the manner in which the other importers had made their customs declarations which had resulted in quota No 09.6750 being exhausted. That court also ordered the customs authority to evaluate those circumstances taking into account the criteria laid down in Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code.

18

As part of the review procedure initiated following the judgment of 13 February 2019, the customs authority supplemented the file concerning that case by including the clarifications provided by the Polish Minister for Finance and the European Commission. It is apparent from that evidence that, on 1 October 2017, the total volume of requests had exceeded the available 2500 tonnes and that importers had indeed used quota No 09.6750 when filing customs declarations on that date. On 1 October 2017, those importers had requested the release of the goods for free circulation at the most-favoured-nation duty rate, and subsequently amended their customs declarations under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code in order to add quota No 09.6750 to those declarations. In that regard, it was thus established that 165 importers had successfully submitted declarations on 1 October 2017.

19

By decision of 31 August 2020, the customs authority maintained its position and once again upheld the decision of the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber (Gdańsk). The customs authority considered that, given that the TARIC and ISZTAR systems had been updated on 2 October 2017, all importers had been in the same situation and had had the opportunity to submit a customs declaration requesting authorisation to import the goods at issue at an erga omnes rate, followed by a request to amend that declaration and to apply a zero-rate customs duty under quota No 09.6750. The customs authority thus concluded that the circumstances of this case precluded the possibility of recognising the existence of grounds for cancellation of customs duties for equity reasons, as provided for in Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code, since no importer had been able to make a customs declaration on 1 October 2017 seeking to benefit from quota No 09.6750.

20

The action brought by C. against the decision of the customs authority was dismissed by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Provincial Administrative Court, Gdańsk) by judgment of 17 March 2021. In that judgment, the court held that Article 56(3) and Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code justified the submission of a customs declaration at the non-preferential tariff on 1 October 2017 and the amendment of that declaration following the integration of the quota number in question into the TARIC system. According to that court, the customs authority had fulfilled the obligations under the judgment of 13 February 2019 and had supplemented the file to the necessary extent. Furthermore, that court found that, since C. had not been treated differently from other importers, the conditions for the application of Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code were not met.

21

C. brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court), which is the referring court.

22

According to the referring court, there are serious doubts as to whether it is possible an operator to amend his or her customs declaration in order to benefit from a preferential tariff which that operator knowingly chose not to claim when filing that declaration, since there was no technical possibility of doing so and the initial version of the customs declaration was filed for the sole purpose of securing priority over other importers. That court notes that the right to request an amendment to the customs declaration under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code constitutes an exception to the principle of the irrevocability of that declaration and that its main objective consists in the implementation of the applicable customs obligations. As such, that right should be interpreted strictly and limited to correcting mistakes and clerical errors in the customs declaration, which would exclude amending an importer’s declaration of intent included in a customs declaration. That court considers that, the customs administration is free to assess the legitimacy of an application for amendment under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code taking into account the criterion of good faith on the part of the importer.

23

In the event that the possibility of amending a customs declaration in order to benefit from a tariff quota would be allowed, the referring court also asks whether an application for amendment in order to benefit from the relevant quota should have retroactive effect, either from the date of filing of the initial customs declaration, or from the date on which the decision authorising the amendment became final. In that regard, that court notes that an application for amendment under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code requires the customs administration to adopt a decision on that request within 120 days under Article 22(3) of the Union Customs Code and that that decision may be subject to judicial review before becoming final.

24

Lastly, still assuming that the possibility of amending a customs declaration in order to benefit from a tariff quota would be allowed, the referring court questions the possibility of refunding or remitting the customs debt on the basis of Article 120 of the Union Customs Code.

25

In those circumstances the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Must Article 2 [TEU] be interpreted as meaning that giving priority in the use of [the relevant] tariff quota to entities making a customs declaration with the intention of later amending it under Article 173(3) of … the Union Customs Code over those making a correct customs declaration at the earliest possible date breaches the principles of equality, justice and solidarity?

(2) Must Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as allowing a customs declaration to be amended in order to “comply with the obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned” by supplementing it (for instance, with a tariff quota number) and by replacing the erga omnes rate with a preferential duty rate in the customs declaration?

(3) Must Article 22(3), read in conjunction with Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that the date on which a request to apply a tariff quota is submitted for an operator that makes an incomplete customs declaration is the date on which it was originally submitted or rather the date on which the administrative decision by which the customs authority permits the customs declaration to be amended becomes final, assuming that the maximum time limit for taking that decision is 120 days?

(4) Must Article 120(1) of the Union Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that special circumstances where “no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the debtor” in connection with a customs debt being incurred also obtain if that debt is incurred despite the submission, at the earliest possible date, of a correct customs declaration with the preferential duty rate resulting from a tariff quota?’

26

It should be found, at the outset, that, by the first question, the referring court is essentially asking whether the subsequent addition of a tariff quota number to a customs declaration that has been previously filed and accepted, by means of an amendment to that declaration, under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, is compatible with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and solidarity set out in Article 2 TEU where, by that amendment, the declarant seeks to secure priority in the allocation of the tariff quota. That question therefore in fact seeks to clarify the limits of the possibility of making an amendment under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, which is the subject of the second question. The first question does not therefore raise an independent question of interpretation of Article 2 TEU within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

27

By its first and second questions, which should therefore be dealt with together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing an operator to add, to a customs declaration that has previously been submitted, a specific tariff quota number in order to replace, in that declaration, the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate.

28

Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code provides that the customs authorities may, upon application by the declarant, within three years of the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, permit the amendment of a customs declaration after release of the goods in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned.

29

It is therefore necessary, in order to determine whether Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code is applicable in the case where the declarant subsequently adds, in a customs declaration, the number of a specific tariff quota in order to replace the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate, to interpret the concept of ‘amendment [permitting] the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned’ within the meaning of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code.

30

It must be borne in mind that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgment of 16 July 2020, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑97/19, EU:C:2020:574, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

31

First, as regards the wording of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, it should be noted that different language versions of that article, namely the Spanish, French and Polish versions, use the terms ‘rectificación’, ‘rectification’ and ‘sprostowanie’ respectively. Those terms suggest that that provision only allows for the correction of mere clerical errors affecting a customs declaration. By contrast, other language versions use broader terms that are closer to the concept of ‘modification’ of the customs declaration. For example, the German and English versions use the terms ‘Änderung’ and ‘amendment’, respectively. It should be noted that, although the addition of a tariff quota number to a customs declaration which has already been accepted cannot be classified as the mere correction of an error vitiating that declaration, such an addition could nevertheless be classified as an amendment to such a declaration. However, the Court has repeatedly held that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU languages. Where there is a divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to its context and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgment of 18 September 2019, VIPA, C‑222/18, EU:C:2019:751, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

32

Secondly, with regard to the context of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, it should be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s case-law, the Union Customs Code is based on a system of declarations. That system aims to keep customs formalities and controls to a minimum while preventing fraud or irregularities that could harm the EU budget. Because of the importance of those prior declarations for the proper functioning of the customs union, the Union Customs Code, in Article 15 thereof, places an obligation on declarants to provide accurate and complete information (see judgment of 9 July 2020, Unipack, C‑391/19, EU:C:2020:547, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

33

That obligation placed on declarants to provide accurate and complete information has, as its corollary, the principle of the irrevocability of the customs declaration once it has been accepted, a principle the exceptions to which are strictly defined by the relevant EU legislation (see judgment of 17 September 2014, Baltic Agro, C‑3/13, EU:C:2014:2227, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

34

Although the principle of the irrevocability of the customs declaration once it has been accepted is qualified, under the Union Customs Code, by the possibility, provided for in Article 173 thereof, of amending a customs declaration, the fact remains that that possibility constitutes an exception to that principle, which must be interpreted strictly (judgment of 8 June 2023, Zes Zollner Electronic, C‑640/21, EU:C:2023:457, paragraph 43).

35

Such strict interpretation reflects, moreover, the intention of the EU legislature. This is apparent from the comparison that can be made between the provisions of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code as adopted by that legislature with the text which had been proposed in that regard by the Commission in Article 149 of the Proposal for a Regulation COM(2012) 64 final of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code of 20 February 2012. The legislature added to Article 173 of that code the condition that the amendment as provided by that provision may be applied for after the release of the goods only in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned, thereby reflecting the legislature’s intention to restrict the possibilities of amending customs declarations (judgment of 8 June 2023, Zes Zollner Electronic, C‑640/21, EU:C:2023:457, paragraph 44).

36

Thirdly, as regards the objectives pursued by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that they support an interpretation of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code which excludes the possibility of adding, by means of an amendment, the number of a specific tariff quota to a customs declaration after its acceptance and the release of the goods in order to replace, in that declaration, the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate.

37

As is apparent from paragraph 32 above, the obligation on the part of declarants to provide accurate and complete information in their declarations plays an essential role in the proper functioning of customs controls and in combating fraud and irregularities. It is therefore consistent with the pursuit of that objective that the possibilities of amending customs declarations should be strictly limited. In particular, it is hardly compatible with that objective that a customs declaration can be changed, after its acceptance and the release of the goods, for the sole purpose of benefiting from a preferential duty rate instead of the erga omnes rate initially applied for.

38

In that regard, it should also be noted that, as regards the revision of customs declarations after the granting of release under Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) (‘the Community Customs Code’), which preceded Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code, the Court held that the purpose of Article 78 of the Community Customs Code was to bring the customs procedure into line with the actual situation (see judgment of 12 October 2017, Tigers, C‑156/16, EU:C:2017:754, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). Thus, the Court held that Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code, which provided for the possibility for customs authorities to take the necessary measures to rectify the situation on the basis of new information, applied in particular in the presence of unintentional or involuntary errors or omissions affecting a customs declaration (see also, to that effect, judgments of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraphs 69 and 70, and of 10 July 2019, CEVA Freight Holland, C‑249/18, EU:C:2019:587, paragraph 38).

39

However, the filing of a customs declaration without an application to benefit from a tariff quota opened in accordance with EU legislation before the integration of the quota number into the TARIC and ISZTAR systems appears to be a voluntary choice on the part of the declarant, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. Consequently, the subsequent addition of that number cannot be regarded as seeking to bring the customs procedure in line with the actual situation within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 38 above, which remains relevant for the interpretation of Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code. Indeed, by adding such information, a declarant is not seeking to regularise his or her customs situation, but to secure the benefit of the preferential duty rate linked to the relevant tariff quota by replacing the erga omnes rate whose application had been knowingly applied for in the initial customs declaration with that tariff quota.

40

Moreover, it should be borne in mind that it follows from recital 20 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 that the rules relating to the management of tariff quotas contained in that regulation are intended to ensure a correct and uniform application of those quotas. The addition, after the acceptance of a customs declaration, of an application seeking to benefit from a specific tariff quota by means of an amendment under Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code would run counter to that objective.

41

It is apparent from Article 49(1), Article 50(2) and Article 51(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, read together, that an application seeking the benefit on the part of the declarant of a specific tariff quota must be submitted at the same time as the initial customs declaration, so that the date of acceptance of the latter can determine the chronological order in the allocation of that quota. By filing a customs declaration under the erga omnes rate on the day of entry into force of a tariff quota opened in accordance with EU legislation, and by subsequently adding a tariff quota number, by means of an amendment, on the day of the integration of that number into the TARIC and ISZTAR systems, a declarant appears to be seeking to secure priority in the allocation of that quota over importers who have submitted a customs declaration accompanied by an application seeking to benefit from that quota as soon as possible following the integration of the quota number into those systems, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

42

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first and second questions is that Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as precluding an operator from adding, to a customs declaration that has been previously submitted, a specific tariff quota number in order to replace, in that declaration, the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate.

43

By the third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the subsequent addition, by means of the amendment of a previously filed customs declaration, of an application seeking the benefit on the part of the declarant of a tariff quota has retroactive effect on the allocation of that quota. This question therefore rests on the assumption that Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing such a subsequent addition of a quota number.

44

Lastly, by the fourth question, the referring court asks about the interpretation of the conditions giving rise to the reimbursement or remission of a customs debt as set out in Article 120 of the Union Customs Code. In particular, that court questions the applicability of that article to a situation in which the customs debt arose despite the fact that a customs declaration accompanied by an application for the declarant to benefit from a preferential duty rate established by a tariff quota had been filed as soon as possible after the integration of the quota number into the TARIC and ISZTAR systems. That question arises, in a case like that in the main proceedings, only if it can be considered that the customs authorities are entitled to allocate a tariff quota on the basis of customs declarations knowingly filed before the integration of the relevant quota number into those systems and subsequently supplemented, by means of an amendment, by an application for the declarant to benefit from that quota. Thus, the fourth question also rests on the assumption that Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing such an amendment to be made.

45

In the light of the foregoing and since it follows from the answer to the second question that Article 173(3) of the Union Customs Code cannot be interpreted as allowing an operator to amend a customs declaration by adding a tariff quota number, there is no longer any need to answer the third and fourth questions.

46

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Article 173(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code

must be interpreted as precluding an operator from adding, to a customs declaration that has been previously submitted, a specific tariff quota number in order to replace, in that declaration, the erga omnes rate initially applied for with a preferential duty rate.