INF5 for use with prior export equivalence – scenarios
The following scenarios for when an INF5 should be used have been taken from an EU discussion paper.
See also SPE13315 on prior export equivalence and movements involving another Member State (EX/IM).
Scenario 1 - PEE no movements involving another Member State - no INF5 required
Company A processes EU sugar (as equivalent goods) into jam and caramel within its IP authorisation. Products are exported under IP EX/IM. Company A subsequently imports third country sugar under the equivalence system.
No INF5 is required as the same company is exporting Union sugar and importing non-union sugar to replace it.
Scenario 2 - PEE and movements involving another Member State - INF5 required
Company A processes EU sugar (as equivalent goods) into jam and caramel within its IP authorisation. Products are exported under IP EX/IM.
Company A subsequently imports non-union sugar under the equivalence system (or may transfer the rights and obligations to another company named on its IP authorisation (see below)).
Company B (a sugar dealer) is named on Company A’s IP authorisation. He wishes to import third country sugar under the equivalence system and sell the imported sugar with exemption from duties under EX/IM on the EU market. Company B does no processing for Company A but he lodges the customs import declaration, so, if an INF5 was raised naming him, then he can operate by importing the replacement third country goods and then sell them on the EU market with no duties payable as an equivalent amount of EU goods has already been exported by Company A.
INF5 is required to transfer the rights and obligations from Company A to Company B.
Each IP authorisation holder may be restricted in the amount of sugar it can import to IP. However, it is possible for a number of IP authorised companies to transfer the rights and obligations for their quota of the replacement sugar to one sugar dealer, so long as he is named on all the authorisations and is specifically named in Box 2 of each INF5.
Scenario 3 - this scenario looks at which company should be authorised for PEE and movements involving another Member State when three companies performing different tasks are involved/linked
Company A holds an IP authorisation with the use of standard equivalence only granted. Prior Export equivalence is not authorised.
Company A imports raw cane sugar (CN Code 1701 13 90) under IP.
Company B on behalf of Company A processes the raw cane sugar into white sugar (CN Code 1701 99 10).
Company C in another Member State is also linked to Company A. Company C exports refined, white sugar (CN Code 1701 99 10) via another MS which has been manufactured from EU sugar beet (eg, not from the imported raw cane sugar).
Rules on sugar equivalence:
Raw cane sugar (CN 1701 13 09 and 1701 14 90) can be equivalent to sugar beet (CN 1212 91 80) so long as the processed product produced is CN1701 99 10 (eg, the goods that are exported by Company C in this scenario).
In the scenario above where Company A holds the authorisation in the first Member State - the white sugar in the first Member State is not ‘assigned a customs approved treatment or use’ so IP is not discharged correctly and a customs debt incurred. The operations are not in line with Council Regulation (EU) 952/2013, Article 223 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, Annex 71-04.
However, an alternative would be that an IP authorisation with prior export equivalence could be granted in the Member State where the refined sugar (CN 1701 99 10) made from EU sugar beet is exported. Company C could then export the white sugar under Inward Processing (EX/IM) and Company A could import replacement duty free cane sugar. Company A would need to be named in Box 2 of the INF5 raised in the other Member State.