The declaration, as referred to here, cannot be rendered inoperable on the grounds of article 66 CCC. Rendering a declaration inoperable once goods have been released is only possible on the grounds of article 251, Implementing Regulations for the CCC, at the request of the declarant. (After all, authorisation has been given, albeit verbally. This is permissible in the situation of direct representation, but is not recommended in view of being able to furnish proof).

Nor can the export declaration be made inoperable if the export declaration is immediately followed by a T2 document. Customs takes the export declaration into consideration, and not the subsequent customs regulation.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (articles 278 and 279) stipulates that shipment must be considered to rank with export. Special obligations therefore also apply to the shipment of goods.

The buyer based outside the EC must have the declaration drawn up by means of indirect representation. In fact, this is the only option! In this case, the buyer based outside the EC is the client.

The buyer based within the EC can have the declaration drawn up by either direct or indirect representation. But the seller based within the EC can also draw up, and pay for, a declaration on its own behalf.

Yes. Indirect representation can be applied to all regular export declarations.

Special obligations always fall upon the person/legal entity stated in the permit in relation to the special obligation.

Example

In the case of inward processing (suspension) the permit holder is responsible for compliance with the permit conditions. He must ensure that the regulation is cleared in time. The special obligations lie with this party. He must draw up or give instructions for drawing up a re-export declaration and pay for it. The re-export declaration can be submitted by a direct representative on behalf of and payable by the permit holder.

• Cancelling export (article 792bis) is an obligation for both the exporter and the declarant (permit holder = exporter = declarant)
• Submitting proof of exit (art 792ter) is an obligation for both the declarant and the exporter (permit holder = exporter = declarant)
• Compliance with the 90-day period (art 793ter, section 2) is an obligation for the exporter (permit holder = exporter)

The following applies in the event of indirect representation:

• Cancelling export (article 792bis) is an obligation for both the exporter and the declarant. The obligation lies with 2 parties (the permit holder = exporter, the indirect representative = declarant)
• Submitting proof of exit (art 792ter) is an obligation for both the declarant and the exporter. The obligation lies with 2 parties (the permit holder = exporter, the indirect representative = declarant)
• Compliance with the 90-day period (art 793ter, section 2) is an obligation for the exporter. The obligation lies with 1 party, the permit holder = the exporter

This involves a Customs dispatching agent so there is a case of indirect representation. Status 40 signifies the end of verification. In the event of indirect representation the Customs dispatching agent continues to be the declarant. The Customs dispatching agent retains the responsibilities of the declarant.

In the case of direct representation, status 40 ends the responsibilities of the direct representative, except when he has submitted a declaration requesting that a permit be issued and states in the declaration that he guarantees the required security. In this case, his security remains in place until the procedure ends.

In the case of indirect representation, the Customs dispatching agent is the declarant. The declarant is responsible for the content and accuracy of the declaration In the event of discrepancies, the declarant will be held responsible. This is also the case if the goods do not correspond with the declaration.

The situation will be no different to the present one. At present, the Customs dispatching agent is also the declarant; indirect representation does not alter this. The Customs dispatching agent has all the responsibilities imposed on the declarant by other legislation due to a mutatis mutandis provision for customs legislation, for example.

In this case, the location is the location where the goods are packed or loaded with a view to export pursuant to article 161 section 5. After all, an exporter cannot be identified on the basis of article 788 section 1 of the CCC Implementing Regulations and nor is there a party in the EU that has concluded a contract, as stipulated in article 788 section 2 of the CCC Implementing Regulations.

You are taking the right action.

You are taking the right action.

You are taking the right action.

This seems the right approach. Company B is the exporter. The company may not be an owner but does have the same right of disposal over the goods. In this sense, company B is to be considered as an exporter. That is why company B is the party that will pay for the export declaration. This is done by applying direct representation.

Yes. Authority to represent can be confirmed at a later date.

If a declaration has been made in direct representation that results in special obligations, and if this declaration has been made without a (proper) authorisation, the consequences cannot simply be passed on to the representative. For example, if a permit for an economic customs procedure is required to make a declaration while the party considered to be the new declarant does not have such a permit, Customs should not have accepted the declaration. The acceptance of this declaration will be reversed. However, the representative will be held responsible for the other consequences of this action such as, for example, the customs debt (on the grounds of article 204 section 1 letter b CCC – placement under a procedure without meeting the conditions).

Also, in these circumstances, the represented party can still confirm the authority of the representative.

The declaration for placement under an economic customs procedure is made by a direct representative. He has not been given authorisation by his client.

Case: Import:

The direct representative has made the import declaration in his own name and at his own expense without a valid permit. The customs debt falls on the representative (on grounds of article 204 section 1b CCC). He is the person who, on the grounds of section 204 paragraph 3 CCC has not met the conditions related to placement under the procedure. In this case, the direct representative has also made an erroneous declaration > a criminal offence.

Case: Export:

The direct representative has made an erroneous export declaration> a criminal offence.
However, if authorisation is given at a later date, a new export declaration will need to be drawn up.

If no authorisation is given, the declaration will be made inoperable or withdrawn. The declaration will need to be made later on by the right person.

Theoretically, this is the same case as for import. Here too a customs debt can be incurred, but only for export.

All cases of representation, both direct and indirect, require authorisation. In the case of indirect representation, a written authorisation is required.

Yes. On the grounds of the CCC and section 8 of the Customs Act the exporter (every person, every business in NL) has an obligation to keep records. This also applies to the non-EU exporter: art 14 CCC. Furthermore, we also have the other national stipulations concerning the obligation to keep records.

The authority to represent can be confirmed at a later date. If this cannot be done, the following applies:

Only a declaration accepted by Customs leads to legal consequences, so a declaration filed without authorisation will be invalidated. A new declaration needs to be filed and the moment at which it is accepted is decisive.

The exporter must apply for the export permit. This may also be the foreign exporter. He can be represented in customs-related matters on the grounds of art 5 CCC (community law).

The Strategic Goods implementation decree is national law. The general agency law of section 3:60 of the Dutch Civil Code applies.

No, there is no case for indirect representation. The Carnet holder is liable in accordance with the Istanbul ATA Convention.

Indirect representation is not required because temporary import is exempted from the EU business establishment requirements (the international agreement is sufficient proof for identifying the Carnet holder).

However, there is a case of a direct representation. The Customs dispatching agent performs legal actions (filing, signing, etc) directly on behalf of a third party. After all, the Carnet holder is directly linked to the rights and duties governing the actions of the Customs dispatching agent.

Authorisation is required for this, but here too, this has no set form according to the law and the written version is required, at most, as legal proof.

In most cases, it is clear who the exporter is. However, it is not always clear who is to perform the special obligations. This particularly applies to situations in which use is made of the delivery condition Ex Works. The client and the actual exporter may not be one and the same person. Two situations are set out below:

A Customs dispatching agent is instructed to file an export declaration for a buyer not based in the EU. The sales invoice shows that the delivery conditions are Ex Works and that the seller (Dutch supplier) applies the zero VAT tariff. Who should be stated on the declaration as exporter: in other words, on whose behalf or under whose responsibility should the declaration be filed?

Customs regulations state that filing the declaration is the responsibility of the party exporting the goods. The rules concerning turnover tax are separate from the customs regulations. The following applies to the turnover tax: the party supplying goods at a zero tariff must prove at the time of export that the goods have departed from the EU.

For the zero tariff to be applied correctly, the supplier needs to have proof that the goods have actually departed from the EU. It is therefore better for the supplier to take responsibility for filing the export declaration. The supplier will then be entered as exporter. The supplier must authorise the Customs dispatching agent (direct or indirect representation). Customs issues a proof of exit from the EU in the supplier’s name. After all, the supplier is an interested party; he must be able to demonstrate that the goods have departed from the EU.

However, the buyer can also be entered as exporter on the declaration, as the buyer has the same right of disposal over the goods. The buyer must issue authorisation (the only possible option is indirect representation) to a representative to make an export declaration.

A Customs dispatching agent is instructed to file an export declaration for a buyer not based in the EU. The sales invoice shows that the seller (Dutch supplier) charges VAT on the sale. Who should be stated on the declaration as exporter: in other words, on whose behalf and under whose responsibility should the declaration be filed?

In this case it is in the buyer’s interests that the goods actually depart from the EU. He can then file for a VAT refund. There is no reason why the supplier should be entered on the declaration as exporter. In the declaration, the buyer is the exporter. The buyer issues an authorisation for this to the Customs dispatching agent (the only possible option is indirect representation).