WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds.
C 89 E/6 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 3. 2001 effective corporate taxation rates in the Community. The other is a consideration of remaining tax obstacles to cross-border economic activity in the internal market. The first panel is composed of academics and other experts in the evaluation of effective levels of company taxation. The second panel is composed of experts from the business community and social partners at a Community level (business associations, trade unions, accountancy associations etc. ). The first panel met for the first time on 9 July 1999; the date for its next meeting is not yet scheduled. The second panel met for the first time on 13 July 1999 and its next meeting is planned for 19 May 2000. In addition, the Commission organises from time to time meetings of the heads of customs and tax administrations and meetings of the deputy heads of indirect taxation departments, during which all major issues within their areas of responsibility are discussed, so as to ensure co-ordination between the two areas. A meeting may take place at the end of the year. In addition to the committees and working parties operating under the auspices of the Commission, there are specialised working groups in the taxation field meeting within the Council. The Council will be able to provide the Honourable Member with information on these groups. (1) OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977. (2) OJ L 76, 23. 3. 1992. (3) OJ L 24, 1. 2. 1992. (4) OJ L 336, 27. 12. 1977. (5) OJ L 126, 28. 4. 1998. (6) COM(94) 219 final. (2001/C 89 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission (31 March 2000) Subject: Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds European exporters are in practice being held accountable for the illegal re-importation into the Community of a number of sensitive products which are eligible for refunds and are thereby being held to account for circumstances beyond their control. Will the Commission take steps to ensure that the legal and financial responsibility for any illegal re- importation into the Community of goods eligible for refunds is placed on third country exporters and/or authorities by requiring certificates of authenticity, for example? Will the Commission introduce a rule whereby responsibility is transferred to the importer once the customs formalities in respect of an exported product in a third country are completed? Does the Commission agree that repayment should be required only insofar as the authorities are able to prove the exporterís complicity or that re-importation occurred under circumstances within the exporterís control? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 May 2000) The Commission and the Member States have held numerous discussions on the question of reimporting into the Community products eligible for export refunds, with a view to determining what mechanism could be set up in order to prevent Community funds from being granted in respect of economic operations for which the export refund system is not intended. 20. 3. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 89 E/7 Recovering refunds from third-country exporters is not feasible. The existence of authenticity certificates would in no way resolve the problem because products which are reimported may quite legally be eligible for a reduction in, or exemption from, import duty. Since the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) agreementsí entry into force, it has no longer been possible to stipulate in a regulation that the importer is responsible for reimbursing the export refund on reimportation into the Community. To do so would run counter to the Communityís international obligations. Nor has it been possible to adopt the Honourable Memberís proposed approach (whereby repayment would be required only if the Community exporterís complicity could be proved) in respect of return under preferential arrangements. Someone located outside the Community could arrange for trade to be deflected by instructing firm A to export refund-eligible products to firm B for light processing in a third country, after which firm C would import them into the Community and benefit ü quite legally ü from reduced or zero import duty. Although it would be impossible to prove the Community exporterís complicity in those circumstances, the operation would have been set up solely in order to divert Community funds and nothing could be done about it. Under Article 20(4)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (1), the refund must be reimbursed if the exported products are reimported into the Community without having to reduced or zero customs duty at the time of undergone substantial processing and are subject reimportation. So that this clearly deterrent provision does not result in excessive restrictions for exporters, it has been applied only to certain products which are particularly sensitive to deflections of trade. Nor does the measure apply if such products are reimported under the returned goods system provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) or if more than two years elapse between when they are exported from the Community and subsequently reimported. (1) OJ L 102, 17. 4. 1999. (2) OJ L 302, 19. 10. 1992. (2001/C 89 E/006) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Golf course at Is Arenas, Sardinia, Italy Two golf courses, one of which is a nine-hole experimental course, have been built in the area of Is Arenas (Narbolia and San Vero Milis municipalities) in Sardinia, which appears on the list of sites of Community interest under Directive 92/43 (1) code ITB 0002228, since it consists of coastal woodland on sandy dunes which includes priority habitats, and is in the Regional Nature Park of Sinis-Montiferru that is due to be set up. The projects were not subject to an environmental impact assessment nor were any checks carried out to establish whether there was any need for an environmental impact assessment (2). In order to build the golf courses over 10 000 pinus pinea and pinus pinaster plants have been cut down (according to information made public by the Is Arenas company itself) and profound changes to the site have occurred as a result of earth moving and flattening operations carried out using scrapers and other heavy machinery. In order to supply the water necessary for the maintenance of the greens, 18 water wells have been sunk, 11 of which are operational, and a connection to the water supply network of the Land Improvement Cooperative has been established. No data exist on the overall level of water used by the golf courses. This is a matter of concern since a standard 18-hole golf course requires a great deal of water (3) and the area has one of the lowest rainfall levels in Sardinia. The project is in danger of causing the salinisation of the entire Habitat area and the drying out of the surrounding water table, with adverse consequences for those who farm and live in the area. In addition, that fact that the land is sandy will mean that the water table will be polluted by herbicides and pesticides