WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Recovery of customs duties.
C 53 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 The application of Directive 79/409/EEC and Directive 92/43/EEC is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. The Commissionís only responsibility is to check whether the Member State has respected the requirements of those Directives. The requirements of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, such as the assessment of alternative routes instead of the temporary or permanent re-opening of the existing railway line through the Meinweg, only apply if the results of the assessment under Article 6(3) of the Directive show that the project will have significant effects on the Meinweg. At the moment the Commission has no indication that action has to be taken as suggested in the question in advance of receiving the reply from the Netherlands. It has not yet received any indication that an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC or Directive 92/43/EEC has already taken place. (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000. (2) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (3) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2001/C 53 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/00 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Consequences of the drought in Portugal (14 April 2000) It is common knowledge that the drought in Portugal is damaging agriculture in various ways, especially where winter and late spring and early summer crops are concerned. Have steps been taken to aid the Portuguese producers who have sustained losses? If so, what support has been granted? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 May 2000) The Commission has been fully aware of the continuing drought in Portugal in recent months. It is still too soon to assess the damage to this yearís crops. The Commission will examine any specific problems that may arise in the context of the common market organisations. If Portugal wishes the Community would be able, as part of her operational programme on agriculture and rural development for the period 2000-2006 and within the financing limits already set, to part-finance restoration of production capacity lost as a result of natural disasters. (2001/C 53 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/00 by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Recovery of customs duties Under the generalised system of preferences textile products are imported on favourable terms from Bangladesh to the European market with certificates of origin. The Commission has initiated action for the recovery of customs duties on products imported during 1994-1996. This is giving rise to considerable financial difficulties for European importers and great dissatisfaction has also been caused by the fact that importers who were acting in good faith have been kept in ignorance of the authoritiesí suspicion of widespread irregularities. The following questions need to be clarified here: 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/105 Did the Commission at any time object to the customs authorities in the Member States generally informing importers that there was justified suspicion of widespread technical problems with certificates of origin from Bangladesh? Is it true that the customs authorities in the Member States ü as a consequence of the Commission resorting to Article 19 in Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 (1) on mutual assistance ü were for a period of time precluded from generally informing importers that there was a suspicion that there were or that there could be widespread technical problems with certificates of origin from Bangladesh? If so, what was that period of time? Which Member Statesí authorities informed the Commission that there were or there could be widespread technical problems associated with certificates of origin from Bangladesh? When was this information passed on to the Commission? Is it true that the Commission and some of the customs authorities in the Member States had originally planned to undertake a mission to Bangladesh back in the beginning of 1996. If so, what was the background to this mission, which of the Member Statesí customs authorities were involved in it, when was this mission to have been undertaken and why was it not undertaken? When and with the participation of which Member Statesí customs authorities were there set up, through the Commissionís intervention, one or more ad hoc committees and/or held ad hoc meetings to consider the question of the quality and accuracy of certificates of origin from Bangladesh? (1) OJ L 144, 2. 6. 1981, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (19 June 2000) At no time has the Commission sought to prevent the Member States from taking appropriate action in respect of importers. In fact, the Commission itself published an information Advice to importersí (1) advising all Community importers of potential problems concerning the accuracy of Form A origin certificates for textiles originating in Bangladesh. The European antifraud Office has provided the Commission with specific elements. the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom had Certain Member States, notably Denmark, Germany, expressed to the Commission concerns about the operation of the system for the post-verification of generalised scheme of preferences (GSP) Forms A issued in Bangladesh in the context of ad hoc meetings in the latter part of 1995 and the first half of 1996. Those concerns were not expressed as ájustified suspicion of widespread technical problemsí. Practical arrangements concerning the visit of the Community delegation to Bangladesh relied upon information supplied by the Commission delegation in Dhaka. Because of the violent strikes in Bangladesh in 1996 largely directed towards textile factories, it was not possible for a Community delegation to carry out such a visit with all the necessary safety guarantees before November 1996. The examination, on a certificate by certificate basis, of GSP Form A certificates of origin, in order to establish the authenticity of the documents and the accuracy of the information which they contained, took place in the context of the joint enquiries conducted between the visiting Community delegation (Commission and representatives from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and United Kingdom) and the authorities of Bangladesh in November 1996 and December 1996. A preparatory ad hoc meeting was held in Brussels in October 1996 which was attended by representatives of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Subsequently, several meetings were held, in particular in January 1997 with representatives of the Member States who participated in the mission and in February 1997 when all Member States participated with the exception of France. (1) OJ C 107, 5. 4. 1997