Kendelse af 12-04-2017 - indlagt i TaxCons database den 12-05-2017

SKAT har opkrævet told på 13.696 kr. og importmoms på 174.626 kr., dvs. i alt 188.322 kr., af 20.365 kg laks, der blev indført fra Norge til Danmark uden at blive frembudt for toldmyndighederne.

Landsskatteretten stadfæster SKATs afgørelse.

Faktiske oplysninger

Lastbilen med det hollandske registreringsnummer [reg.nr.1] ankom den 10. januar 2014 med færgen ”[x1]” fra [by1] i Norge til [by2] i Danmark.

Det hollandske firma [virksomhed1] (herefter benævnt klageren) var ejer af lastbilen.

Lastbilens fragt bestod ifølge færgens manifest sammenholdt med lasteliste for lastbilen af 20.365 kg laks.

Af SKATs toldrapport af 13. januar 2014 fremgår, at chaufføren ved ankomsten til [by2] henvendte sig til personalet i toldekspeditionen. Ekspeditionen fandt ikke noget registrering på bilnummeret. Chaufføren blev bedt om at kontakte sit firma eller speditør for at få et referencenummer. Chaufføren forlod stedet uden at gøre yderligere.

SKATs afgørelse

SKAT har truffet afgørelse om at opkræve told på 13.696 kr. og importmoms på 174.626 kr., dvs. i alt 188.322 kr., af den indførte mængde laks på 20.365 kg hos klageren.

Afgørelsen er begrundet således:

Customs Clearance, [by3], gave you in a letter dated 12. February 2014 a time limit of 14 days to prove that the goods - which arrived to [by2] with the ferry "[x2]" from [Norge] in Norway - was followed by a transit declaration or declared under a customs procedure e.g. free circulation/free consumption in EU or exportation, and in a letter dated 8. April 2014 we ask your company to send us the opinion of your company concerning the drafted statement of claim.

As the time limit now has expired and we have not received the abovementioned documentation, Customs Clearance, [by3], collect form your company duty and VAT, according to article 38 to 41, 202 and 215 in the Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12. October 1992.

Following amount is collecting:

Duty 2 %13.696,00 DKK.

VAT 25 % of 698.504,00 DKK. 174.626,00 DKK.

A total of:188.322,00 DKK.

For further reasons we refer to the enclosed final statement of claim.

[...]”

I den tilhørende sagsfremstilling har SKAT anført:

The facts of the case:

One of your company's lorry (or your company was the responsible carrier according to information given to us from the shipping company [virksomhed2] A/S) with the registration number [reg.nr.1] arrived 10th January 2014 to [by2] in Denmark from [by1] in Norway with the ferry "[x2]". The driver named [person1] did apply to the customs office at the external border and deliver a "Zollerklärung für Lastkraftwagen" to the customs telling that he brought 20.365 kilos of fish into EU. He was told to go to [virksomhed3] to get an import declaration or a transit declaration, but he drove without providing any customs papers to the customs at the external border of EU.

According to the manifest of the ferry the consignment was 20.365 kilos of fresh salmon.

In a letter dated 7. April 2014 we asked for documentation for what happened to the above-mentioned goods not later than 22. April 2014. I received an e-mail the 10. April 2014. According to your driver he went to the customs. They told him to go to [virksomhed3] in [by2]. After this he went back to the customs with a reference number.

According to the customs, he did not return and drove without providing any customs papers for the customs.

As we have not yet received any documentation from your company telling us that the above-mentioned goods have been customs cleared in EU we now collect the following amount calculated on the basis of statistical information.

In support of the decision:

As the responsible carrier it is an obligation of your company to apply to the customs office at the external border of the EU when you arrive from a third country (Norway) into the customs territory of the Community according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12. October 1992, with later changes, and according to the Danish Customs law § 18 and § 79, the first subparagraph, no 3 and 4.

If the goods are accompanied by a transit declaration the carrier is legally bound to fill in a transit advice note to the customs authorities at the external border of EU according to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2. July 1993, art. 359.

Your company is responsible for paying duty and VAT unless it is proved that the goods in question has been customs cleared according to § 31 in the Danish law "Bekendtgørelse om toldbehandling BEK no. 403 from 3. May 2012".

If goods are imported into EU in a non-fulfilment way we have the duty to collect customs debt according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12. October 1992, articles 38 to 41 and article 202 and 215.

If an import declaration has not been delivered to Customs we have the right to make a declaration ourselves either on a statistical basis or on a rough estimated basis to fix customs value and customs debt according to The Danish Customs law, § 13, no 2.

The customs value is fixed to 684.808 DKK

Duty is fixed to 2 %

[...]”

Klagerens opfattelse

Klageren har nedlagt påstand, at opkrævningen af beløbet på 188.322 kr. skal nedsættes til 0 kr.

Til støtte for påstanden har klageren anført:

”We have been driving a load i.o.o [virksomhed4] in Norway from [Norge] to France. This we have loaded the 9th of January(pls find attachment “Order [virksomhed4]”). The truck has taken the ferry [virksomhed2] from [by1] to [by2] the 10th of January at 08,00. When the driver arrived in [by2] he went to the customs first which send him to [virksomhed3] and then he went back again to the customs afterword’s. He has got a stamp on all the cmr’s from [virksomhed3] as you can see(pls find attachment “CMR” and “truck [reg.nr.1]”). He asked at the customs also for a stamp on his CMR’s, as we instruct to do to all our drivers, but they told him they did not want to (this we hear very often and is a common problem which also [virksomhed3] is confirming) and that everything was ok now and he could start driving to France.

On the 13th of January we got an e-mail from [virksomhed4] asking us if the driver has not been at the customs in [by2]. We have answered them that he was at the customs in [by2] and we have got an answer back from them with “OK”(pls find attachment “E-mail contact Intertermo Holl - [virksomhed4]”).

We have been taking this “ok” as case closed and solved.

Than we received a letter(pls find attachment “First Statement Danish Customs”) from Miss [person2] from the Danish Tax and Customs Administration the 10th of April. We were ofcource surprised that it seems to be that the case was not closed at al after reading this letter. Miss [person2] asked in her letter to make a statement which we did the same day with an e-mail(pls find attachment “Statement [virksomhed1]”). On this mail we have got an answer from her “confirmed” telling us that she received our e-mail(pls find attachment “Receive Confirmation [person2] ”).

Than we received a letter(pls find attachment “Final Statement Danish Customs”) the 30th of April again from Miss [person2]. Which we also answered the same day again(pls find attachment “Rejecting claim [virksomhed1]”).

Friday the 2nd of May we have tried to call miss [person2] but we did not get her on the phone. We have send her the same day an e-mail with a request for a telephone meeting and that she has answered the 4th of May.(pls find attachment “Request for a telephone call”).

We had telephone contact whit Miss [person2] yesterday morning the 5th of May and we went through the whole case again. She promised us to discuss it with one of her college’s and come back to us by e-mail later on the day before she should go on Holiday. After 13,00 hrs we did still not hear anything and we send her an e-mail if she had any news already and if she could give us the contact details from her college so we could contact him/her when she is on holiday. That e-mail was answered with a “autosvar” telling that she is on holiday till the 16th of May.((pls find attachment “After telephone call”).

We are in the opinion that our driver did everything correctly. This driver is driving via a sub-contractor for us already for the past 4 years. In these past 4 years he has been driving between “EU” and Norway so he is very known and aware of the importance of going into the customs when he is entering the “EU”.

We are still surprised that we did not hear anything after the e-mail from the 13th of January which [virksomhed4] answered with “OK” till we get a letter from Miss [person2] the 10th of April.

Once again, with this e-mail we appeal against “the final statement of claim” with [by3] file nr. [...].

[...]”

Landsskatterettens afgørelse

Af EU’s dagældende toldkodeks (Rådets forordning nr. 2913 af 12. oktober 1992 med senere ændringer), art. 38 og 40 fremgår, at varer, der føres ind i EU’s toldområde, omgående skal føres til det af toldmyndighederne anviste toldsted og frembydes for toldmyndighederne.

Af den dagældende toldkodeks art. 202 fremgår, at toldskyld opstår, når importafgiftspligtige varer føres ind i EU’s toldområde på ikke forskriftsmæssig måde. Af art. 215 fremgår, at toldskylden opstår på det sted, hvor omstændighederne, der er årsag til toldskyldens opståen, indtræffer.

Af toldlovens § 18 fremgår, at førere af befordringsmidler ved ankomst til det danske toldområde fra et tredjeland skal anmelde sig til toldmyndighederne (SKAT).

Af toldlovens § 13, stk. 2, fremgår, at hvis fristen for angivelse til fortoldning er overskredet, kan toldmyndighederne (SKAT) ansætte told og afgifter på grundlag af en skønsmæssigt ansat mængde eller værdi og efter de satser, der var gældende den dag, hvor varerne senest kunne være angivet rettidigt til fortoldning.

Af momslovens § 12, stk. 1, fremgår, at der skal betales importmoms af varer, der indføres til Danmark fra steder uden for EU.

Det fremgår af færgens manifest sammenholdt med lasteliste for lastbilen, at der var en last på 20.365 kg laks i lastbilen.

Disse varer blev den 10. januar 2014 i [by2] indført til EU’s toldområde fra et tredjeland (Norge).

Varerne blev ikke frembudt for toldmyndighederne (SKAT) ved indførslen. Varerne er dermed blevet indført på ikke forskriftsmæssig måde til EU’s toldområde.

Der er dermed opstået toldskyld af varerne, jf. den dagældende toldkodeks art. 202.

Der er endvidere opstået pligt til at betale importmoms af varerne, jf. momslovens § 12, stk. 1.

Den påklagede afgørelse stadfæstes derfor.