Wniosek o zmiany w UKC

Poniżej prezentujemy treść wniosku jaki został złożony w imieniu zarządu PICLiS na spotkanie członków zarządu CONFIAD, który odbywa się w dniu dzisiejszym tj. 14.09.2016 w Paryżu z prośbą o przekazanie sformalizowanych uwag KE.

Dear all,

I thank you for the invitation for the CONFIAD Board Meeting but unfortunatelly the representation of Polish Chamber of Customs Logistics and Forwarding will not be present.

As for the suggestions to be discussed on the meeting I would be very happy if te subject of the guarantees could be discussed and a common posistion agreed to. We see a set of problems in the provisions regarding the quarantees – not limited only to art. 89 UCC but also in the annex 32-03 of the Delegated Act. The problems with interpretation of the guarantees, its scope and validity was not solved by the guidelines prepared by the Commision – on the contrary: the guidelines are not-explanatory and the main problems are not mentioned at all. The problems we see are:

  1. unnecessary development of the procedure of calculating the amount of the guarantee

In our opinioin the amount of guarantee shell be set by the person providing the guarantee and only by this person. All consequences if the guarantee would be to small would fall to the person submitting the guarantee.

  1. term for release the guarantee

Due to the provisions of UCC if the guarantee is not released it may be used to cover the customs debt resulting from a shipment, even if the declared amount was incorrect and even in case when the customs debt is a result of the decision issued after the clearance. So: the guarantee covers all customs debt from a shipment, regardles what was declared, until the guarantee is released.

There is no definition of release of the guarantee ans there is a risk, that a customs administration will release the guarantee only after the period of 3 years (art. 103 UCC).

The only provision – art. 98 UCC states only that the guarantee is released when the customs debt is extinguished or may no longer arise, which is after thee years (due to art. 103 UCC).

Guidelines state only that the release of the guarantee is linked to the discharge of the procedure – what does ot mean? It does not explain anything.

  1. restoring of the limit of the guarantee – as set in the form 32-03 of DA

The guidelines have absolutely no explanation of the restoring of the limit of the guarantee – how shall it work and when

So in the end the person submitting the guarantee may be forced to cover the customs debt resulting from a customs clearance prepared in direct representation,

after the period of 3 years, regardless of the amount declared.

The second problem is connected directly with the restoring of the limit – because of it it would be nearly impossible to determine the limit of the guarantee. So for example, even if you set a guarantee for 100.000 eur, after the release of the goods it may accur that the customs administration want to cover the customs debt from the guarantee, and after 1 month (when the limit would be restored) it would happen again, and then again – every time with the amount to cover of 100.000 eur. In such case – we consulted this with some financial institutions in Poland – there would be absolutelly no one willing to issue a guarantee – because the guarantee would have no actual limit.

Additionally we would be very happy if you could discuss and agree on a position on the requirement of the guarantee for the designated place (for purposes of simplified procedure) – for use of the simplified procedure of entering in the declarant’s record there must be another guarantee.

Why two separate guarantees must be submitted: one for designated place and one for the procedure?

We see also an issue with the CEN standards touched on upon on Moskow Board Meeting: costs of the acreditation of the standards.

Because the provisions in force allow all persons – natural persons and entities – who have AEO status to act as customs representative on all EU member states with no limitations. The requirements for AEO status are – due to art. 39 c) UCC – practical standards of competency and proffesional qualifications. Due to art. 27 Implementing Act these are considered as fulfilled when alternatively:

– the person has 3 years of practical experience (with not additional requirements)

– the person complets the training provided by customs administration, educational body or profesional association (recognised by a member state or acredited by the EU)

– the person meets the CEN standards (as set out by European Standarisation body)

The CEN standards are not the only one way to get an AEO status and if we make implementation of CEN standard expensive no one will be interested. In the provisions in force there is no balance between these 3 ways of getting the AEO: easiest and cheapest ist 3 years of experience, the most complicated and as it seams most expensive are the standards. We agree, that the standards shall be the the primary way of getting the standards, but we have dubts it will be so, if they are not compulsory.

So, in short: how does CONFIAD intend to convince to use the standards if they are not compulsory and there are much cheaper and easier ways to meet AEO conditions.







Możliwość komentowania jest wyłączona.