A senior EU lawyer concluded that the British government’s failure to resolve the issue of customs fraud led to criminal gangs flooding the European market with cheap clothes and shoes made in China.
The non-binding opinion of the legal experts of the European Court of Justice does not recommend any penalties, but supports the position of the Brussels authorities to require the UK to pay 2 billion euros (1.71 billion pounds) to the EU budget.
In a 139-page legal opinion issued on Thursday, Attorney General Priit Pikamäe (Priit Pikamäe) largely supported the European Commission; he concluded that the UK “has failed to meet its obligations “According to EU law, the correct tariffs and value-added tax are levied on imported Chinese goods. Estonian legal experts also stated that the British authorities have not shown “sincere cooperation”, which is a key principle of EU law. In particular, he criticized the UK for concealing legal opinions believed to be the reason for HMRC’s cancellation of 24 requirements for payment to suspicious importers.
“Given the nature of the fraud involved and the knowledge that the British authorities were able to acquire during the infringement period, the measures taken by the United Kingdom are clearly ineffective,” Picamey wrote.
Although the opinions of the Attorney General are not binding on the judges of the European Court of Justice, the courts usually follow their recommendations.
As the renegotiation debate continues to heat up, his views may exacerbate tensions between London and Brussels. Brexit and Northern Ireland AgreementAccording to the Brexit Agreement, any violation of EU law during the period of its membership in the United Kingdom is still subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The so-called failure of HMRC can be traced back to 2011-2017.
After the European Union Anti-Fraud Office (Olaf) accused the British authorities of failing to crack down on customs fraud that allowed criminal groups to evade EU tariffs, the European Commission launched legal action in 2018 to file false claims on clothes and shoes imported from China. Olaf Said that the British authorities had received multiple warnings about fraud and suggested that Fine of 1.98 billion euros.
According to fraud investigators, more than 50% of all textiles and footwear imported into the UK in 2016 came from China Below the “Minimum Acceptable Price”, this is a calculation based on production costs.
This case emerged after the decision was made in 2005 Supported by the then EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson Abolish textile and clothing quotas in all World Trade Organization countries, including China. In the next few years, EU fraudulent officials began to worry that importers used false invoices to underestimate the value of clothes and shoes made in China. The European Union Anti-Fraud Office issued an alert in 2014 and launched a snake operation to check import declarations. This includes methods for calculating undervalued commodities.
British customs officials refused to use EU methods, believing that it would be counterproductive and disproportionate. In court, the British defense team stated that customs officials had taken all necessary measures to combat fraud, arguing that EU law did not provide for any method of calculating undervalued goods. The government is supported by six member states: Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia.
The Attorney General rejected their arguments and recommended that the UK and the six supporting countries bear the costs. He also hopes that the UK will pay four-fifths of the European Commission’s legal costs.
Other member states, especially France, accused the United Kingdom of failing to help solve the fraud problem. This case involves all EU member states, because 80% of the tariffs levied on the EU’s external borders are used in the common budget.
The Guardian has contacted the British government for comments. When these allegations first appeared in 2017, HMRC stated that it “has an excellent track record in handling various frauds and violations.”
