2013/0432(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point g

(g) failure of a person bringing goods into the customs territory of the Union to comply with the obligations relating to the conveyance of the goods in the appropriate place in accordance with Article 135(1) of the Code, or to inform customs authorities immediately when the obligations cannot be complied with in accordance with Article 137(1) and (2) of the Code and of the whereabouts of the goods;

Amendment 101 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point j

(j) failure of the ~~economic operator~~person keeping the goods in its approved storage facility or in other places designated or approved by the customs authorities responsible for non- Union goods which are in temporary storage to place those goods under a customs procedure or to re-export them within the time limit in accordance with Article 149 of the Code;

Amendment 102 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point o

~~(o) failure of the holder of the outward processing procedure to export the defective goods within the time limit in accordance with Article 262 of the Code;~~deleted

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point p

(p) construction of a building in a free zone without the prior approval of the customs authorities in accordance with Article 244(1) of the Code;

Amendment 104 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point q

~~(q) non-payment of import or export duties by the person liable to pay within the period prescribed in accordance with Article 108 of the Code.~~deleted

Amendment 105 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – points q a to q l (new)

(qa) failure of an economic operator to supply, in response to a request by the customs authorities, the requisite documents and information in an appropriate form, and to provide all the assistance necessary for the completion of the customs formalities or controls referred to in Article 15(1) of the Code; (qb) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to comply with the obligations resulting from that decision in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code; (qc) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken by those authorities which influences its continuation or content, in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code; (qd) failure of the holder of the Union transit procedure to present the goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed time-limit in accordance with point (a) of Article 233(1) of the Code; (qe ) unloading or trans-shipping of goods from the means of transport carrying them without authorisation granted by the customs authorities or in places not designated or approved by those authorities in accordance with Article 140 of the Code; (qf) storage of goods in temporary storage facilities or customs warehouses without authorisation granted by the customs authorities in accordance with Articles 147 and 148 of the Code; (qg) failure of the holder of the authorisation or the holder of the procedure to fulfil the obligations arising from the storage of goods covered by the customs warehousing procedure in accordance with points (a) and (b) of Article 242(1) of the Code; (qh) providing customs authorities with false information or documents required by those authorities in accordance with Articles 15 or 163 of the Code; (qi) the use of false statements or any other irregular means by an economic operator in order to obtain an authorisation from the customs authorities: (i) to become an authorised economic operator in accordance with Article 38 of the Code, (ii) to make use of a simplified declaration in accordance with Article 166 of the Code, (iii) to make use of other customs simplifications in accordance with Articles 177, 179, 182, 185 of the Code, (iv) to place the goods under special procedures in accordance with Article 211 of the Code; (qj) introduction or exit of goods into or from the customs territory of the Union without presenting them to customs authorities in accordance with Articles 139, 245 or Article 267(2) of the Code; (qk) processing of goods in a customs warehouse without an authorisation granted by the customs authorities in accordance with Article 241 of the Code; (ql) acquiring or holding goods involved in one of the customs infringements set out in point (f) of Article 4 and point (c) of this Article.

Amendment 106 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4

Customs infringements committed by Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute customs infringements where committed by negligence: (a) failure of the economic operator responsible for non-Union goods which are in temporary storage to place those goods under a customs procedure or to re- export them within the time limit in accordance with Article 149 of the Code; (b) failure of the economic operator to provide customs authorities with all the assistance necessary for the completion of the customs formalities or controls in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Code; (c) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to comply with the obligations resulting from that decision in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code; (d) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken by those authorities which influences its continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code; (e) failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into the customs territory of the Union to the customs authorities in accordance with Article 139 of the Code; (f) failure of the holder of the Union transit procedure to present the goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed time limit in accordance with Article 233(1)(a) of the Code; (g) failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into a free zone to customs in accordance with Article 245 of the Code; (h) failure of the economic operator to present the goods to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union to customs on exit in accordance with Article 267(2) of the Code; (i) unloading or trans-shipping of goods from the means of transport carrying them without authorisation granted by the customs authorities or in places not designated or approved by those authorities in accordance with Article 140 of the Code; (j) storage of goods in temporary storage facilities or customs warehouses without authorisation granted by the customs authorities in accordance with Articles 147 and 148; (k) failure of the holder of the authorisation or the holder of the procedure to fulfil the obligations arising from the storage of goods covered by the customs warehousing procedure in accordance with points (a) and (b) of Article 242(1) of the Code.Article 4 deleted negligence

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – point b

(b) failure of ~~the~~an economic operator to ~~provide customs authorities with~~supply, in response to a request by the customs authorities, the requisite documents and information in an appropriate form and within a reasonable time, and to provide all the assistance necessary for the completion of the customs formalities or controls in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Code;

Amendment 108 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – point d

(d) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken by those authorities which influences its continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code;deleted

Amendment 109 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 5

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute customs infringements where committed intentionally: (a) providing customs authorities with false information or documents required by those authorities in accordance with Articles 15 or 163 of the Code; (b) the use of false statements or any other irregular means by an economic operator in order to obtain an authorisation from the customs authorities: (i) to become an authorised economic operator in accordance with Article 38 of the Code, (ii) to make use of a simplified declaration in accordance with Article 166 of the Code, (iii) to make use of other customs simplifications in accordance with Articles 177, 179, 182, 185 of the Code, (iv) to place the goods under special procedures in accordance with Article 211 of the Code; (c) introduction or exit of goods into or from the customs territory of the Union without presenting them to customs authorities in accordance with Articles 139, 245, or Article 267(2) of the Code; (d) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to comply with the obligations resulting from that decision in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code; (e) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken by those authorities which influences its continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code; (f) processing of goods in a customs warehouse without an authorisation granted by the customs authorities in accordance with Article 241 of the Code; (g) acquiring or holding goods involved in one of the customs infringements set out in point (f) of Article 4 and point (c) of this Article.Article 5 deleted Customs infringements committed intentionally

Amendment 110 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title

CSerious customs infringements ~~committed intentionally~~

Amendment 111 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute serious customs infringements ~~where committed intentionally~~:

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point b – introductory part

(b) the use of ~~false statements or any other irregular mean~~inaccurate or incomplete information or inauthentic, inaccurate or invalid documents by an economic operator in order to obtain an authorisation from the customs authorities:

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point c

(c) introduction or exit of goods into or from the customs territory of the Union without presenting them to customs authorities in good time in accordance with Articles 139, 245, or Article 267(2) of the Code;

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point e a (new)

(ea) failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into the customs territory of the Union to the customs authorities in accordance with Article 139 of the Code;

Amendment 115 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point e b (new)

(eb) failure of the holder of the Union transit procedure to present the goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed time limit in accordance with Article 233(1)(a) of the Code;

Amendment 116 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point e c (new)

(ec) failure of the economic operator to present the goods brought into a free zone to customs in accordance with Article 245 of the Code;

Amendment 117 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point e d (new)

(ed) failure of the economic operator to present the goods to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union to customs on exit in accordance with Article 267(2) of the Code;

Amendment 118 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point e e (new)

(ee) unloading or trans-shipping of goods from the means of transport carrying them without authorisation granted by the customs authorities or in places not designated or approved by those authorities in accordance with Article 140 of the Code;

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point f a (new)

(fa) storage of goods in temporary storage facilities or customs warehouses without authorisation granted by the customs authorities in accordance with Articles 147 and 148 of the Code;

Amendment 120 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point f b (new)

(fb) failure of the holder of the authorisation or the holder of the procedure to fulfil the obligations arising from the storage of goods covered by the customs warehousing procedure in accordance with points (a) and (b) of Article 242(1) of the Code;

Amendment 121 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – point g

~~(g) acquiring or holding goods involved in one of the customs infringements set out in point (f) of Article 4 and point (c) of this Article.~~deleted

Amendment 122 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7

The acts or omissions referred to in Articles 3 to 6 do not constitute customs infringements where they occur as a result of an error on the part of the customs authorities, and the customs authorities shall be liable where errors cause damage.

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall ensure that legal persons are held liable for customs infringements as referred to in Articles 3 to 6 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, based on any of the following:

Amendment 124 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall also ensure that legal persons are held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of a customs infringement for the benefit of that legal person by a person under the authority of the p(Does not affect the English version ~~referred to in paragraph 1~~.)

Amendment 125 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. For the purpose of this Directive, ‘legal person’ shall mean any entity having legal personality under the applicable law, except for States or public bodies in the exercise of State authority and for public international organisations.

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – title

SAdministrative sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6

Amendment 127 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 ~~within the following limits:~~ to 6 and may decide to impose any sanction or combination of sanctions from the following list: (a) permanent or temporary confiscation of the goods; (b) permanent or temporary revocation of the status of authorised economic operator; (c) pecuniary fine of up to 100% of the duties evaded; (d) pecuniary fine of up to 100% of the value of the goods in the intended market for those goods; (e) pecuniary fine unrelated to the duties or value of the goods but proportionate to the severity and other circumstances of the infringement.

Amendment 128 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate ~~and~~, dissuasive and non- criminal sanctions are imposed for those customs infringements referred to in Article 3 that are considered minor in accordance with Article 11a, within the following limits:

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate ~~and~~, dissuasive and non- criminal sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Article 3 in addition to recovering the duties evaded, within the following limits:

Amendment 130 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, not governed by criminal law, are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Article 3 within the following limits:

Amendment 131 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point a

~~(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from 1 % up to 5 % of the value of the goods;~~deleted

Amendment 132 #

Nicola DANTI

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~from 1%~~ up to 5100% of the ~~value of the goods;~~duties evaded; or

Amendment 133 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement ~~relates to specific goods~~is linked to the duties evaded, a pecuniary fine of~~rom 1 %~~ up to 5 0% of the ~~value of the goods~~duties evaded;

Amendment 134 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from 1 % up to 5 % of the value of the goods, depending on the seriousness of the infringement and the damage caused;

Amendment 135 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point b

~~(b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from EUR 150 up to EUR 7 500.~~deleted

Amendment 136 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not ~~relat~~linked to ~~specific goods~~the duties evaded, a pecuniary fine of~~rom EUR 150~~ up to EUR 7 500.

Amendment 137 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from EUR 150 up to EUR 7 500, in line with clear criteria relating to the damage caused.

Amendment 138 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

In the case of the first or a minor infringement only, Member States may choose to help economic operators to correct the reason(s) for the infringement instead of resorting to sanctions.

Amendment 139 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Nicola DANTI

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)

In the case of repeat offences or aggravating circumstances surrounding an offence, Member States may choose to apply a multiplier to the pecuniary fines provided for in the first paragraph.

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10

Sanctions for customs infringements Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Article 4 within the following limits: a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to 15 % of the value of the goods; b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to EUR 22 500.Article 10 deleted referred to in Article 4

Amendment 141 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10

Sanctions for customs infringements Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Article 4 within the following limits: (a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to 15 % of the value of the goods; (b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to EUR 22 500.Article 10 deleted referred to in Article 4

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11

Sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Article 5 and 6 Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 5 and 6 within the following limits: (a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to 30 % of the value of the goods; (b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine up to EUR 45 000.Article 11 deleted

Amendment 143 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate ~~and~~, dissuasive and non- criminal sanctions are imposed for those customs infringements referred to in Article~~s 5 and 6~~ 3 that are considered serious in accordance with Article 12, within the following limits:

Amendment 144 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that effective, proportionate ~~and~~, dissuasive and non- criminal sanctions are imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 5 and 6 in addition to recovering the duties evaded, within the following limits:

Amendment 145 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – introductory part

Amendment 146 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

(a) ~~where the customs infringement relates to specific goods,~~ a pecuniary fine from 50% up to 3100 % of the ~~value of the goods;~~duties evaded; or

Amendment 147 #

Nicola DANTI

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from 100% up to 3400% of the ~~value of the goods;~~duties evaded; or

Amendment 148 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement ~~relates to specific goods~~is linked to the duties evaded, a pecuniary fine of up to 30 100% of the ~~value of the goods~~duties evaded;

Amendment 149 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine upfrom 5% to 30 % of the value of the goods;

Amendment 150 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Nicola DANTI

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point b

(b) ~~where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods,~~ a pecuniary fine from EUR 7 500 up to EUR 45 000.

Amendment 151 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point b

b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine upfrom EUR 7 500 to EUR 45 000.

Amendment 152 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not ~~relat~~linked to ~~specific goods~~the duties evaded, a pecuniary fine of up to EUR 45 000.

Amendment 153 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a Factors to be taken into account in assessing whether an infringement is minor Member States shall ensure that, when determining whether an infringement is minor as well as the level of sanctions to be imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Article 3, the competent authorities take into account all relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate, any of the following factors that may apply: (a) the infringement was committed by negligence; (b) the effective cooperation of the person responsible for the infringement with the competent authority in the proceedings; (c) voluntary disclosure of the infringement, provided that the infringement is not yet the subject of any investigation activity of which the person responsible for the infringement has been formally notified; (d) the person responsible for the infringement is able to show that he or she is making a significant effort to align with Union customs legislation by demonstrating a high level of control of his or her operations by means of a compliance system; (g) the infringement has little or no impact on the amount of customs duties to be paid.

Amendment 154 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a Possibility of imposing criminal sanctions Member States may opt to apply criminal sanctions where a customs infringement falls within their national laws providing for the imposition of criminal sanctions.

Amendment 155 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11 a Mitigating and aggravating circumstances Member States shall ensure that when determining the type and the level of sanctions for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6, the competent authorities take into account the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances: a) Aggravating circumstances : The amount of the sanction must be increased, with due regard for Articles 9 to 11, where the competent authorities or the courts find that there are aggravating circumstances, as follows: i) where an identical or similar offence is continued or committed again; ii) where the person responsible for the infringement is an authorised economic operator; iii) where the amount of the evaded import or export duty is large; iv) where the goods involved are subject to the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in the second sentence of Article 134(1) of the Code and in Article 267(3)(e) of the Code or pose a risk to public security; v) where the person responsible for the infringement has refused to cooperate with the competent authority; b) Mitigating circumstances: The amount of the sanction must be reduced, with due regard for Articles 9 to 11, where the competent authorities or the courts find that there are mitigating circumstances, as follows: i) where the person responsible for the infringement has genuinely cooperated with the competent authority; ii) where the infringement has been disclosed voluntarily, provided that the infringement is not yet the subject of any investigation of which the person responsible for the infringement had formal knowledge.

Amendment 156 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 b (new)

Article 11b Other non-criminal sanctions for customs infringements referred to in Articles 5 and 6 In addition to the sanctions listed in Articles 9 and 11, Member States may impose the following non-pecuniary sanctions where a serious infringement is committed: (a) confiscation of goods; (b) revocation of the status of authorised economic operator in the case of a serious infringement as referred to in Article 5 or in the case of a customs infringement which is committed more than once as referred to in Articles 3 to 6; (c) suspension of an authorisation which has been granted.

Amendment 157 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title

~~Effective application of sanctions and exercise of powers to impose sanctions by competent authoritie~~Factors to be taken into account in assessing whether an infringement is serious

Amendment 158 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title

~~Effective application of sanctions and exercise of powers to impose sanctions by competent authoriti~~Aggravating circumstances

Amendment 159 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – introductory part

~~Member States shall ensure that when determining the type and~~Whatever the circumstances, including in the levelnt of ~~sanctions for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate:~~discharge, the courts cannot exempt the person liable for payment from payment of the sums defrauded or unduly obtained or from seizure of goods dangerous to health or morality and public security, counterfeit goods, or goods subject to quantitative restrictions.

Amendment 160 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that, when determining the type and the level of sanctions for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6, the competent authorities ~~shall~~ take into account ~~all relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate:~~ the following aggravating circumstances, resulting in the sanction being increased within the limits laid down in Articles 9 and 11. Aggravating circumstances shall also be taken into consideration from the very beginning of the process, that is to say, during the determination of whether a customs infringement has been committed and taking into account the principle of proportionality and the appropriateness of the sanctions. The classification of the customs infringement in terms of its gravity and the amount of the sanction to be imposed shall be increased within the limits laid down in this Directive where the competent authorities find that there are aggravating circumstances, such as:

Amendment 161 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that, when determining ~~the type and~~whether an infringement is serious as well as the level of sanctions to be imposed for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 ~~to 6~~, the competent authorities ~~shall~~ take into account a~~ll relevant circumstances, including, where appropriate~~ny of the following circumstances that may apply:

Amendment 162 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point -a (new)

(-a) the infringement was committed with intent;

Amendment 163 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point a

~~a) the seriousness and the duration of the infringement;~~deleted

Amendment 164 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point a

(a) the seriousness and ~~the~~ duration of the infringement and the damage caused;

Amendment 165 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point a

(a) ~~the seriousness and~~ the duration of the infringement;

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point a a (new)

(aa) commission of the same or a similar or linked infringement;

Amendment 167 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point b

~~b) the fact that the person responsible for the infringement is an authorized economic operator;~~deleted

Amendment 168 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point c

~~c) the amount of the evaded import or export duty;~~deleted

Amendment 169 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point d

d) the fact that the goods involved are subject to the prohibitions or restrictions referred to in the second sentence of Article 134(1) of the Code and in Article 267(3)(e) of the Code or pose a risk to public security;eleted

Amendment 170 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point e

~~e) the level of cooperation of the person responsible for the infringement with the competent authority;~~deleted

Amendment 171 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point e

(e) ~~the level of cooperation of~~refusal by the person responsible for the infringement to cooperate or to cooperate fully with the competent authority;

Amendment 172 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – point f

~~f) previous infringements by the person responsible for the infringement.~~deleted

Amendment 173 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Settlement Member States shall ensure the possibility of a settlement as a procedure allowing the competent authorities to enter into an agreement with the person responsible for the infringement to settle the matter of a customs infringement as an alternative to initiating or pursuing legal proceedings for the imposition of a sanction. The Commission shall provide guidelines on settlement procedures to ensure that economic operators are given the opportunity of a settlement in a transparent and equal manner.

Amendment 174 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Mitigating circumstances Member States shall ensure that, when determining the type and the level of sanctions to be imposed for customs infringements as referred to in Articles 3 to 6, the competent authorities take into account any of the following mitigating circumstances that may apply, resulting in the sanction being decreased within the limits laid down in Articles 9 and 11. Mitigating circumstances shall also be taken into consideration from the very beginning of the process, that is to say, during the determination of whether a customs infringement has been committed and taking into account the principle of proportionality and the appropriateness of the sanctions. The classification of a customs infringement and the amount of the sanction to be imposed should be decreased within the limits laid down in this Directive where the competent authorities find that there are mitigating circumstances, such as: (a) voluntary disclosure of the infringement, provided that the infringement is not yet the subject of any investigation of which the person responsible for the infringement has knowledge; (b) the person responsible for the infringement is able to show that he or she is making a significant effort to align with the Union customs legislation by demonstrating a move towards a high level of control of his or her operations, such as by setting-up of a compliance system; (c) the nature of the activities and size of the economic operator concerned and the level of impact on the Union's financial interests.

Amendment 175 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Customs settlement Member States shall offer the possibility for the competent authorities to reach a settlement with the offender. A customs settlement shall permit the prosecution authorities to propose to the person who is potentially to be prosecuted that they will refrain from prosecution in return for acceptance of an immediately enforceable penalty. However, once judicial proceedings have been instituted, the competent authorities may reach a settlement only with the agreement of the judicial authority.

Amendment 176 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 b (new)

Article 12b Compliance Member States shall ensure that guidelines and publications on how to comply and continue to comply with Union customs legislation are made available to interested parties in an easily accessible, understandable and up-to-date form.

Amendment 177 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 c (new)

Article 12c Settlement Member States shall ensure the possibility of a settlement as a procedure allowing the competent authorities to enter into an agreement with the person responsible for the customs infringement to settle the matter of such infringement as an alternative to initiating or pursuing legal proceedings for the imposition of a sanction. Member States shall ensure that such a possibility accords with the principle of equal treatment and that the outcome of the procedure is published.

Amendment 178 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period for initiating proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is ~~four~~three years and that it starts to run on the day on which the customs infringement was committed.

Amendment 179 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period for initiating proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is four years and that it starts to run on the day on which the Member State concerned discovered that the customs infringement ~~was~~had been committed.

Amendment 180 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period for proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is f~~our~~ive years and starts to run on the day on which the customs infringement was committed.

Amendment 181 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that, in the case of continuous or repeated customs infringements, the limitation period starts to run on the day on which the act or omission constituting the customs infringement ceases. or when the Member State concerned discovers the infringement(s), whichever is the later date.

Amendment 182 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period is interrupted by any act ofn the ~~competent authority, notified to the person in question,~~part of the person responsible for the infringement relating to an investigation or legal proceedings concerning the same customs infringement. The limitation period shall ~~start~~continue to run on the day ofn which the interrupting act comes to an end.

Amendment 183 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period is interrupted by any act of the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to an investigation or legal proceedings concerning the same customs infringement. The limitation period shall start to run again on the day ofn which the interrupting act comes to an end.

Amendment 184 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall ensure that ~~the initiation or continuation of~~ any proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 ~~is preclud~~are time-barred after the expiry of a period of eight years from the day referred to in paragraph 1, 2 or 23 of this Article, as the case may be.

Amendment 185 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4

4. Member States shall ensure, without prejudice to Article 14(2), that the initiation or continuation of any proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 is precluded after the expiry of a period of eight years from the day referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article.

Amendment 186 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall ensure that the limitation period for the enforcement of a decision imposing a sanction is ~~thre~~five years. That period shall start to run on the day on which that decision becomes final.

Amendment 187 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. Member States ~~shall~~may ensure that administrative proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 are suspended where criminal proceedings have been initiated against the same person in connection with the same facts.

Amendment 188 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Member States ~~shall~~may ensure that the suspended administrative proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 are discontinued where the criminal proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 have finally been disposed of. In other cases, the suspended administrative proceedings concerning a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6 may be resumed.

Amendment 189 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The Commission shall supervise cooperation between Member States to create key performance indicators applicable to customs checks and sanctions, the dissemination of best practices and the coordination of training of customs officers.

Amendment 190 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1

Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have the possibility to temporarily seize any goods, means of transport ~~and any~~or other instrument used in committing the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6. If, following the imposition of a sanction, a Member State permanently confiscates such goods, it may opt to destroy, reuse or recycle the goods, as appropriate.

Amendment 191 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 - paragraph 1 a (new)

Following the submission of that report, and only if further action is deemed necessary in order to ensure an effective enforcement of Union customs legislation, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the other elements of the enforcement of Union customs legislation, such as supervision, control and investigation.

Amendment 192 #

Marlene MIZZI, Alfred SANT, Miriam DALLI

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 a (new)

Article 18a Reporting by Member States Member States shall send to the Commission statistics regarding infringements and showing which sanctions were imposed as a result of those infringements, in order to enable the Commission to assess the application of this Directive. The information thus provided shall be sent annually following the entry into force of this Directive. The Commission may use those data when revising this Directive in order to better approximate national sanctioning systems.

Amendment 52 #

Daniel DALTON

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out~~Rejects the Commission proposal;

Amendment 53 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to ~~refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text~~withdraw its proposal;

Amendment 54 #

Daniel DALTON

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to re~~fer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text~~-examine the necessity of the legislative proposal in the field of customs infringements and sanctions;

Amendment 55 #

Jiří MAŠTÁLKA

Proposal for a directive
–

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a directive
Citation 1

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 33 and Article 114 thereof,

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a directive
Citation 1

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 33 and 114 thereof,

Amendment 58 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) The application of criminal sanctions should be a matter for the competence of the Member States alone.

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)

(1b) This Directive should be in line with Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1. _______________________________ 1 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) That disparity of Member States' legal systems ~~affects~~ not only affects the optimal management of the cCustoms uUnion, but also ~~prevents that~~hinders the achievement of a level playing field ~~is achieved~~ for economic operators in the cCustoms uUnion ~~because~~as it has an impact on their access to customs simplifications and facilitations. Uniformity of the principles governing the way in which customs infringements should be handled by the different customs authorities is needed in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) The ~~legal framework~~minimum requirements for the enforcement of Union customs legislation provided for in this Directive isare consistent with the legislation in force regarding the safeguarding of the financial interests of the Union9. The customs infringements covered by the ~~framework established~~minimum requirements laid down by this Directive include customs infringements that have an impact on those financial interests while not falling under the scope of the legislation safeguarding them by means of criminal law and customs infringements that do not have an impact on the financial interests of the Union at all. __________________ 9 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (COM(2012)363).

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) A list of behaviour which should be considered as infringing Union customs legislation and give rise to sanctions should be established. Those customs infringements should be fully based on the obligations stemming from the customs legislation with direct references to the Code. This Directive ~~does not determine whether~~provides that Member States should apply administrative ~~or criminal law sanctions in respect of those customs infringements.~~ sanctions in respect of those customs infringements. However, this does not affect the possibility for Member States to impose criminal sanctions where a customs infringement falls within the scope of their national laws providing for the imposition of criminal sanctions.

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) A list of behaviour which should be considered as infringing Union customs legislation and give rise to sanctions should be established. Those customs infringements should be fully based on the obligations stemming from the customs legislation with direct references to the Code. This Directive does not determine whether Member States should apply administrative or criminal law sanctions in respect of those customs infringements. This Directive provides that Member States should apply administrative sanctions in respect of those customs infringements.

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

Amendment 65 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) The first category of behaviour should include customs infringements based on strict liability, which does not require any element of fault, considering the objective nature of the obligations involved and the fact that the persons responsible to fulfil them cannot ignore their existence and binding character.deleted

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) The first category of behaviour should include minor customs infringements based on strict liability, which does not require any element of fault, considering the objective nature of the obligations involved and the fact that the persons responsible to fulfil them cannot ignore their existence and binding character.

Amendment 67 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) The second and third category of behaviour should include customs infringements committed by negligence or intentionally, respectively, where that subjective element has to be established for liability to arise.deleted

Amendment 68 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) The second ~~and third~~ category of behaviour should include serious customs infringements ~~committed by negligence or intentionally, respectively, where that subjective element has to be established for liability to arise~~.

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) In order to ensure legal certainty, it should be provided that any act or omission resulting from an error on the part of the customs authorities, within the meaning of the Code, should not be considered a customs infringement.

Amendment 70 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) Member States have divergent approaches to the manner in which customs infringements are to be addressed. In order to maintain flexibility in dealing with customs infringements, the provisions of this Directive are subject to minimum harmonisation. Furthermore, given that some Member States have a system in which criminal sanctions are imposed instead of administrative ones, this Directive aims at laying down common administrative sanctions, but Member States are free to choose to use criminal sanctions taking into account the nature and gravity of, and the other circumstances relating to, the customs infringement concerned.

Amendment 71 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) In order to approximate the national sanctioning systems of the Member States, scales of sanctions should be established reflecting ~~the different categories of the customs infringements and~~ their seriousness. For the purpose of imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, Member States should also ensure that their competent authorities take into account specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances when determining the type and level of sanctions to be applied.

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) In order to approximate the national sanctioning systems of the Member States, scales of sanctions should be established reflecting the different categories of the customs infringements and the~~ir seriousness~~ degree of fault. For the purpose of imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive non-criminal sanctions, Member States should also ensure that their competent authorities take into account specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances when determining the type and level of sanctions to be applied.

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(13) The limitation period for proceedings concerning a customs infringement should be fixed at four years from the day on which the customs infringement was committed or, in the case of continuous or repeated infringements, wheren the behaviour constituting that infringement ceases. Member States should ensure that the limitation period is interrupted by an act relating to investigations or legal proceedings concerning the customs infringement. Member States may lay down cases where that period is suspended. ~~The initiation or continuation of these proceedings should be precluded after an expiry period of eight years, while the limitation period for the enforcement of a sanction should be of three years.~~

Amendment 74 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) A suspension of administrative proceedings concerning customs infringements should be provided for where criminal proceedings have been initiated against the same person in connection with the same facts. The continuation of the administrative proceedings after the completion of the criminal proceedings should be possible only in strict conformity with the ne bis in idem principle, meaning that the same offence must not be penalised twice.

Amendment 75 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Lucy ANDERSON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15 a (new)

(15a) Taking into account the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure effective enforcement of the Union customs legislation, the Commission should take a holistic approach to enforcement in order to assess whether further action is needed to ensure effectiveness of enforcement of the Union customs legislation following the submission of the Commission report on the application of this Directive as referred to in Article 18 of this Directive.

Amendment 76 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) This Directive is intended to strengthen customs cooperation by approximating national laws on customs sanctions. Given that, at present, the legal traditions of Member States differ greatly, total harmonisation in this area is impossible.

Amendment 77 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) Since this Directive aims to provide for a list of customs infringements common to all Member States and for the basis for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions to be imposed by Member States in the area of the customs union, ~~which is fully harmonised,~~ those objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States based on their different legal traditions, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effect, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

Amendment 78 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive ~~establishes a~~seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market and to lay down the framework concerning ~~the~~ infringements of Union customs legislation, and it provides for non- criminal sanctions for those infringements by approximating the provisions laid down by law, regulation, or administrative action in Member States.

Amendment 79 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1a (new)

This Directive is without prejudice to national provisions on: (a) criminal sanctions for customs infringements; (b) customs sanctions in cases of strict liability; and (c) the burden of proof.

Amendment 80 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 a (new)

Article 1a Level of harmonisation Member States may adopt or retain more stringent national provisions compatible with the Treaty in the area covered by this Directive.

Amendment 81 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 b (new)

Article 1b Application of criminal sanctions Member States may decide to apply criminal sanctions instead of, or in addition to, the administrative sanctions provided for in this Directive.

Amendment 82 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – title

Customs infringements and non-criminal customs sanctions

Amendment 83 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2

Member States shall lay down rules on non-criminal sanctions in respect of the customs infringements set out in Articles 3 to 6, where committed by negligence or intentionally.

Amendment 84 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2

Member States shall lay down rules on sanctions in respect of the customs infringements set out in Articles 3 to 6 in strict conformity with the ne bis in idem principle.

Amendment 85 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

For the purposes of this Directive, ‘negligence’ means the failure to take reasonable measures, or the act of taking measures which are manifestly insufficient, to avert harm where the risk of its occurrence is reasonably foreseeable.

Amendment 86 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Member States shall ensure that the acts or omissions set out in Articles 3 to 6 only constitute customs infringements where they are committed by negligence or intentionally.

Amendment 87 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)

For the purposes of this Directive ‘intentionally’ means the fact of acting with guilty intent, that is to say, a wilful and conscious intention to contravene customs legislation.

Amendment 88 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Clerical errors or mistakes committed without negligence or intent shall not constitute a customs infringement.

Amendment 89 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – title

~~Strict liability~~Minor customs infringements

Amendment 90 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – title

~~Strict liability~~Minor customs infringements

Amendment 91 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – title

~~Strict liability c~~Customs infringements

Amendment 92 #

Nicola DANTI

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute minor customs infringements ~~irrespe~~except where they have harmed control activeity ofr a~~ny element of fault:~~ction to recover duties. In these latter cases the infringements listed in this Article shall be considered serious within the meaning of Article 5 of this Directive.

Amendment 93 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute minor customs infringements ~~irrespective of any element of fault~~:

Amendment 94 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute minor customs infringements ~~irrespective of any element of fault~~:

Amendment 95 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – introductory part

Member States shall ensure that the following acts or omissions constitute customs infringements ~~irrespective of any element of fault~~:

Amendment 96 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c a (new)

(ca) failure of the economic operator responsible for non-Union goods which are in temporary storage to place those goods under a customs procedure or to re- export them within the time limit in accordance with Article 149 of the Code;

Amendment 97 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Kerstin WESTPHAL

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c b (new)

(cb) failure of the economic operator to provide customs authorities with all the assistance necessary for the completion of the customs formalities or controls in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Code;

Amendment 98 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c c (new)

(cc) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to comply with the obligations resulting from that decision in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Code;

Amendment 99 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point c d (new)

(cd) failure of the holder of a decision relating to the application of customs legislation to inform the customs authorities without delay of any factor arising after the decision was taken by those authorities which influences its continuation or content in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Code;

source: 578.842

2016/03/22 INTA 27 amendments...

Amendment 11 #

Anne-Marie MINEUR

Proposal for a directive
–

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to propose that the Commission proposal be rejected.

Amendment 12 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) Consequently, customs infringements and sanctions follow 28 different sets of legal rules. As a result of that, a breach of Union customs legislation is not treated the same way throughout the Union and the sanctions that may be imposed in each case differ in nature and severity depending on the Member State that is imposing the sanction, leading to losses of revenue for the Member States and trade distortions.

Amendment 13 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) That disparity of Member States' legal systems affects not only the optimal management of the customs union, but also prevents that a level playing field is achieved for economic operators in the customs union, who are already subject to different sets of rules in the 28 Member States, because it has an impact on their access to customs simplifications and facilitations.

Amendment 14 #

Anne-Marie MINEUR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) A list of behaviour which should be considered as infringing ~~Union customs~~national and Union legislation and may give rise to sanctions should be established for each Member State. Those customs infringements should be ~~fully based~~based in part on the obligations stemming from the customs legislation with direct references to the Code. This Directive does not determine whether Member States should apply administrative or criminal law sanctions in respect of those customs infringements, that being a matter for Member States themselves.

Amendment 15 #

(17) In order to facilitate the investigation of customs infringements, the competent authorities should be allowed to temporarily seize any goods, means of transport or any other instrument used in committing the infringement and use an early warning system to notify the other competent authorities of the 28 Member States of the infringement.

Amendment 16 #

Anne-Marie MINEUR

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) Since this Directive aims to provide for a list of customs infringements common to all Member States and for the basis for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions to be imposed by Member States in the area of the customs union, which is fully harmonised, those objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States based on their different legal traditions, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effect, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.deleted

Amendment 17 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. This Directive covers the obligations of the Union, in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, representing its Member States.

Amendment 18 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 a (new)

Article 1a Trade Facilitation In accordance with the WTO agreement on trade facilitation, the Member States shall work together to set up an early warning system which can be used to notify the 28 Member States without delay of investigations into customs infringements and of established infringements in such a way as to facilitate trade, prevent illegal goods from entering the internal market and improve the effectiveness of checks.

Amendment 19 #

Article 1a Trade facilitation In accordance with the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, Member States shall coordinate amongst themselves to establish a European Trade Facilitation Agency responsible for: coordinating key performance indicators regarding customs sanctions (analysis of number of appeals, recidivism rate); disseminating best practice among customs services (efficiency of controls and sanctions, reduction of administrative costs); passing on the experiences of economic operators and creating a link; monitoring how customs services perform their activities; performing statistical work on infringements committed by companies from third countries (thus directing the work of the customs towards so-called at- risk countries).

Amendment 20 #

Marine LE PEN

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Member States shall ensure that legal persons are held liable for customs infringements committed for their benefit by any member of their staff if that individual can be deemed to have been exploited by the legal person concerned and that person has derived substantial benefit over a sufficiently long period of time.

Amendment 21 #

Marine LE PEN

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Member States shall also ensure that legal persons are held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a person referred to in paragraph 1a has made possible the commission of a customs infringement for the benefit of that legal person by a person under the authority of the person referred to in paragraph 1a.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~from 1 % up t~~of 5 % of the value of the goods;

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine from EUR 152 500 up to EUR 7 500.

Amendment 24 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The amounts of the fines applicable shall be reviewed by the Commission, together with the competent authorities of the Member States, five years after the entry into force of this Directive. The aim of the review procedure shall be to ensure that the amounts of fines applied under the Customs Union are more convergent, with a view to harmonising the operation thereof.

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up t~~of 15 % of the value of the goods;

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – point a

a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up to~~of between 5% and 15 % of the value of the goods or of the duties evaded;

Amendment 27 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up t~~of EUR 22 500.

Amendment 28 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 29 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up to~~of between 10% and 30 % of the value of the goods or of the duties evaded;

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point a

(a) where the customs infringement relates to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up t~~of 30% of the value of the goods;

Amendment 31 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – point b

(b) where the customs infringement is not related to specific goods, a pecuniary fine ~~up t~~of EUR 45 000.

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Each year the Commission shall publish details of the sanctions imposed by the 28 Member States for the customs infringements referred to in Articles 3 to 6 of this Directive. In addition, economic operators found to have committed repeated customs infringements as referred to in Article 5 of this Directive shall have their names included in a public list forwarded to the competent customs authorities throughout the Union.

Amendment 33 #

Maria ARENA

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Member States shall ensure compliance with Regulation No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences. Infringements of Article 33 (Chapter VII) of that Regulation shall be subject to the sanctions provided for in Article 11(1) of this Directive.

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Amendment 35 #

Maria ARENA

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The fact that the goods concerned are subject to prohibitions, quantitative restrictions or surveillance measures on grounds of, in particular, public morality, public policy or public security, or the protection of health and life of humans as referred to in Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for imports shall be considered an aggravating factor.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1

Member States shall co-operate and exchange any information necessary for the proceedings concerning an act or omission constituting a customs infringement referred to in Articles 3 to 6, in particular in case more than one Member State has started proceedings against the same person in connection with the same facts. The objective of cooperation between Member States shall be to increase the effectiveness of customs checks on goods and to harmonise procedures within the Union.

Amendment 37 #