Union Customs Code: When Amendments Are Not Allowed

Defining a date on which a Regulation or Directive comes into force is a common practice that brings legal certainty and predictability, allowing both authorities and businesses to prepare for and comply with the new rules from a clearly defined point in time. However, a case between a Polish importer, referred to as C., and the Polish Customs Authority, illustrates how practical and technical constraints can complicate that certainty in real-world applications.

When a preferential tariff quota formally entered into force on Sunday, and the relevant quota number had not yet been integrated into the EU’s customs IT systems, the importer found itself in situations where it could not immediately claim the benefit. This resulted in a dispute over the limits of amending customs declarations, the management of tariff quotas, and the balance between legal certainty, equal treatment, and the strict procedural framework of the EU's Customs Code.

Background of the Case 

On October 1, 2017, the Regulation (EU) 2017/1566 entered into force, allowing, among other things, the import of honey produced by bees originating in Ukraine into the EU under specific zero-tariff quotas listed in its Annex I. However, since the enforcement date fell on Sunday, the relevant quota numbers had not yet been technically integrated into the EU’s electronic customs systems, namely the EU's Integrated Tariff (TARIC) and Poland’s ISZTAR system.

Consequently, C. was unable to successfully submit a customs declaration on that date requesting the benefit of that quota, even though the Regulation had formally entered into force. The following day, once the quota number had been entered into the electronic systems, C. submitted the customs declaration and requested the application of the zero-duty rate by indicating the appropriate quota number. 

Nonetheless, the Polish Customs Authority determined that the quota had already been fully exhausted on October 1, 2017, the very first day it became valid. As a result, the Customs refused the zero-tariff treatment and instead applied the standard erga omnes customs duty rate of 17.3%. 

That decision was later confirmed in March 2018 by an administrative ruling and upheld in August 2018 after C. filed a complaint. However, the Provincial Administrative Court annulled the administrative decision in February 2019 and instructed the Customs to gather further evidence and clarify key factual issues. 

In the renewed proceedings, the Customs supplemented the case file with explanations from the Polish Minister for Finance and the European Commission. The additional evidence showed that the total volume of import requests had exceeded the available 2,500-tonne quota, and that 165 importers had successfully filed customs declarations on October 1. Notably, importers had initially declared their goods under the erga omnes, and later amended their declarations to include quota, resulting in zero-duty treatment.

Regardless of these findings, the Customs maintained its original position in August 2020 and again upheld the earlier decision. The Customs concluded that all importers had effectively been in the same situation, and had the possibility of first submitting a declaration under the erga omnes rate and then requesting an amendment to apply the zero-duty quota. Thus, there were no exceptional or inequitable circumstances justifying the cancellation of the customs duties.

After the Provincial Administrative Court dismissed its appeal in March 2021, C. filed an appeal on a point of law before the Supreme Administrative Court (Court). After expressing serious doubts about whether an importer may amend a customs declaration to claim a preferential tariff that they knowingly chose not to request at the time of filing, especially where the initial declaration was submitted solely to secure priority over other importers, and there was no technical possibility to claim the quota at that moment, the Court referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling.

Main Questions from Request For Ruling

The Court referred four questions to the ECJ. The first question asked whether Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), which enshrines fundamental values such as equality, justice and solidarity, is breached where priority in the allocation of a tariff quota is effectively given to importers who filed a customs declaration with the intention of later amending, rather than to those who attempt to submit a correct customs declaration at the earliest possible moment.

Secondly, the Court asked whether Article 173(3) of the Customs Code permits a customs declaration to be amended to comply with obligations related to placing goods under the relevant customs procedure by supplementing the declaration with additional elements, such as a tariff quota number, and by replacing the erga omnes duty rate with a preferential rate.

With the third question, the Court sought clarification on timing, asking whether the relevant date for requesting the application of a tariff quota, in the case of an incomplete customs declaration, is the date on which the initial declaration was submitted or the date on which the Customs Authority’s decision authorizing the amendment becomes final.

The final fourth question asked whether Article 120(1) of the Customs Code applies in a situation where a customs debt arises even though the importer submitted, at the earliest possible date, a correct customs declaration claiming the preferential tariff resulting from a tariff quota.

Applicable EU Regulations

Since the focus of the case was not VAT rules and regulations, but customs rules and tariffs, ECJ interpreted several key articles from the Customs Code, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, which details rules for implementing certain provisions from the Customs Code, and Regulation (EU) 2017/1566, which introduced temporary autonomous trade measures for Ukraine.

Poland National Rules

In this case, no national VAT or customs rules were interpreted, and the ECJ focused solely on the EU-wide customs rules and regulations.

Importance of the Case for Taxable Persons

The case is particularly significant for importers and other taxable persons engaged in cross-border trade because it clarifies the limits of post-clearance amendments to customs declarations under the Customs Code. More specifically, the ruling clarifies the rules governing whether and under what conditions an importer may amend a declaration to claim a preferential tariff rate linked to a quota with limited volumes.

Analysis of the Court Findings

At the very outset of its analysis, the ECJ noted that the first question does not raise an independent issue concerning the interpretation of Article 2 TEU within the meaning of the procedural rules governing preliminary references. Instead, as the ECJ determined, it must be examined together with the second question, which specifically addresses the permissible limits of amendments under Article 173(3).

Article 173(3) states that, at the request of the declarant and within three years from the date on which the customs declaration was accepted, Customs Authorities may permit an amendment to that declaration after the goods have been released. Nonetheless, to determine whether this rule applies when the declarant must add the number of a specific tariff quota to a previously accepted customs declaration, thereby replacing the initially requested erga omnes duty rate with a preferential rate, it was necessary to further interpret the provision.

This raised the question of whether adding a quota number and claiming a preferential tariff falls within the scope of an amendment intended to ensure compliance with customs obligations, or whether it instead constitutes a substantive change in the declarant’s original declaration. To determine this, the ECJ examined the wording of Article 173(3), its context, and the objectives pursued by the legislation.

Firstly, the ECJ noted that different language versions of that provision are not entirely consistent, and that a single linguistic version cannot prevail over others. Secondly, the ECJ recalled that the Customs Code is based on a system of customs declarations designed to simplify formalities and controls while safeguarding the EU budget against fraud and irregularities. 

In that context, Article 173 allows amending a declaration, which, under Article 15, must be submitted by the declarant with accurate and complete information. Thus, amending is an exemption, in this case, a limited exemption. For the Article to apply, specific, strictly defined conditions must be met. The fact that legislators set these conditions demonstrates a deliberate intention to limit the scope of permissible amendments and to prevent the provision from being used in a way that undermines the stability and reliability.

On account of the objectives pursued by the legislation at issue, the ECJ found that those objectives also support a restrictive interpretation of Article 173(3). More specifically, the ECJ underlined that allowing a declaration to be changed solely to benefit from a preferential tariff would be difficult to reconcile with the requirement for accurate, complete, and final declarations at the time they are filed.

Furthermore, the ECJ supported this by referring to earlier case-law concerning Article 78 of the former Community Customs Code, which preceded Article 173(3). Based on established case law, the ECJ clarified that this mechanism was intended to correct unintentional or involuntary errors or omissions in a customs declaration. In contrast, in the present case, the filing of a customs declaration without requesting the benefit of a tariff quota appears to have been a deliberate choice by the declarant.

The ECJ further emphasized the objectives of Regulation 2015/2447, particularly Recital 20, which makes clear that the rules governing tariff quota management are designed to ensure their correct and uniform application. Also, the relevant provisions of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 provide that an application to benefit from a specific tariff quota must be made at the same time as the initial customs declaration. 

Thus, the date of acceptance of that declaration determines the chronological order for allocating the quota. Allowing a declarant first to file a declaration under the erga omnes rate on the day a quota enters into force and then later add the quota number once it is integrated into the IT systems would enable the declarant to effectively secure priority over other importers who submitted a complete declaration requesting the quota as soon as technically possible. This would, in practice, distort the chronological allocation mechanism.

Courts Final Decision

The ECJ concluded that the amendment mechanism provided for in Article 173(3) cannot be used to alter a declaration to obtain a preferential tariff after it has been previously filed. Therefore, once a customs declaration has been accepted and the goods released under a given duty rate, the declarant cannot later introduce a tariff quota number simply to benefit from a more favorable rate. Moreover, allowing a change that goes beyond correcting an error would alter the substance of the original declaration, which would be contrary to the purpose of the provision.

Considering the interpretation of Article 173(3), and the fact that the third question and fourth questions are based on assumptions that no longer hold, the ECJ determined that there is no need to answer those questions.

Conclusion

The ECJ's findings in this case draw clear lines between permissible corrections and substantive changes to a declaration, reinforcing the structured, chronological allocation mechanism for tariff quotas within the EU customs system. For importers, the case underscores the central role of accurate and complete declarations at the time of filing, particularly when access to limited tariff quotas is at stake.
Source: Case T‑177/25 - C. sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Director of the Tax Administration Chamber, The Union Customs Code, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, Regulation (EU) 2017/1566, Treaty on European Union (TEU)