L 322/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 27.11.2002 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2090/2002 of 26 November 2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 as regards physical checks carried out when agricultural products qualifying for refunds are exported THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts ('), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 163/94 (3), and in particular Article 6 thereof, Whereas: 1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2221/95 of 20 September 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 as regards physical checks carried out at the time of export of agricultural products qualifying for refunds (), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2655/1999 (%), has been substantially amended. In the interests of clarity and administrative efficiency, therefore, that Regulation should be recast, at the same time making certain amendments which experience has shown to be desir- able. Account should be taken of existing inspection measures, in particular those introduced by Commission Regulations (EC) No 2298/2001 of 26 November 2001 laying down detailed rules for the export of products supplied as food aid (°) and (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricul- tural products (%), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1253/2002 (). In its supplementary report to the Council on the appli- cation of Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 (), the Commis- sion stated its intention to define precisely the term ‘physical check’ as used in Article 2(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 386/90, in order to achieve uniform applica- tion of the Community rules in the Member States. To make better use of the inspection possibilities, export declarations involving small quantities of products or a low amount of refund should be disregarded when calculating the minimum rates of checks. A verification of laboratory tests has shown that the obligation to carry out a laboratory test should be simplified where satisfactory results, obtained repeatedly, concern the same product from the same exporter. L 42, 16.2.1990, p. 6. L 24, 29.1.1994, p. 2. L 224, 21.9.1995, p. 13. ,17.12.1999, p. 12. , 27.11.2001, p. 16. ,17.4.1999, p. 11. ,12.7.2002, p. 12. ,12.8.1993, p. 14. (6) (11) (9 ! A measure should be introduced to take account of cases where the number of exports dealt with by a customs office is minimal. Compared to the total amount of the refunds, the share of refunds granted to goods not listed in Annex I to the Treaty is small, while the share of physical checks carried out on these products is large. To make better use of the inspection resources, this discrepancy should be reduced, in particular by lowering the inspection rate for non- Annex I products. There is a substantial difference between the customs treatment of goods intended for export in the large ports, where there is a great diversity of products coming from a wide range of exporters, and the customs treatment of goods at customs offices which handle only a limited range of products from a few exporters. In the latter case, the goods are subjected to a much higher level of checks. For these customs offices, the selection of goods with a view to carrying out physical checks should take account of the fact that the check is being carried out on the basis of a smaller representative sample. In order to reduce the risk of substitution, all means of transport or packages should be sealed, save in cases where the products may be identified by some other means. Measures should be taken to allow verification at any time of whether the check rate of 5 % has been reached. Article 912¢ of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/ 93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the imple- mentation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 291392 establishing the Community Customs Code (%), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 (*°), specifies the office of destination where the T5 control copy should be presented for the check on the use and/or destination of the goods. It should therefore be stipulated that, if the customs office of exit and the office of desti- nation are not the same, the substitution check must be carried out by the office to which the T5 control copy is sent. OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. (%) OJ L 68,12.3.2002, p. 11.