Why ship supply needs to be mentioned in the UCC guidelines!
by Fernando Alves Pinto, Vice-Chairman of OCEAN's Working Group Customs & Taxation
After adoption of the Delegated Acts (DA) and Implementing Acts (IA) of the Union Customs Code (UCC), the EU Commission will soon be starting discussions on the guidelines of the UCC. Guidelines are important to function as an aid to customs officials and economic operators alike to support the uniform implementation of the legislation.
There are five principal reasons why I believe that the harmonized treatment of ship supplies under the Union Customs Code, its Implementing and Delegated Acts & related Commission regulations should be mentioned in the UCC guidelines.
After adoption of the Delegated Acts (DA) and Implementing Acts (IA) of the Union Customs Code (UCC), the EU Commission will soon be starting discussions on the guidelines of the UCC. Guidelines are important to function as an aid to customs officials and economic operators alike to support the uniform implementation of the legislation.
There are five principal reasons why I believe that the harmonized treatment of ship supplies under the Union Customs Code, its Implementing and Delegated Acts & related Commission regulations should be mentioned in the UCC guidelines.
Firstly, our unique trade, ship supply, is only specifically mentioned in Article 269, 1 (c) under “Export of Union Goods”. It is written in a complicated manner and is difficult to understand without a law degree and understanding of the intention of the original author. A look towards the DA and the IA is not helpful as there is no empowering provision whatsoever in the UCC. The DAs and IAs do not mention ship supply. The transitional delegated act, to be adopted before the end of the year, does not mention ship supply either. This means that there are no additional explanations which could help the reader to interpret the meaning of this article. This may lead to an increase in the diversity of customs treatment in the EU as 28 Member States could interpret such an article differently.
Secondly, Article 269, 1 (c) mentions ship supply. However, the term is not even defined anywhere in the UCC legislation. So, from a legal perspective, what actually is ship supply? Should we not define terms before using them?
Thirdly, we currently have export guidelines under the Community Customs Code and we risk losing these if we do not move and adapt these references into the UCC guidelines. We should make sure we maintain our interpretations and provisions of ship supply under the UCC by including them in the guidelines.
Fourthly, we need to explain how ship suppliers will use Article 270 on re-export. In Portugal, for example, we believe in using re-export followed by transit as the way to deliver on-board of a vessel, when the exit Customs office is different from the export Customs office. In other countries, you currently deliver ship supply with a T1. Under the UCC, will only re-export be allowed? We hope this can be clarified in the guidelines to make sure we know how to bring non-union ship supply to vessels in a uniform manner.
Finally, there are also opportunities in the UCC for ship suppliers, notably self-assessment with entry into records. We should clarify in guidelines that these may be available for, at least, AEO-certified ship suppliers.
I believe that the EU understands that, if the crew and the vessel do not get their ship supply, their stores and spare parts in time, this might not only negatively impact the economics and reputation of our valued EU ports, but could also jeopardize safety at sea and may even harm the environment. If we don’t act in guidelines, national rules continue to be created, often distorting the creation of a genuine EU Single Market for ship supply.
Fernando Alves Pinto
OCEAN – Working Group Customs & Taxation
Vice-Chairman
