DETERMINATION OF THE ORIGIN OF GOODS IN THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSING OPERATIONS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The present article considers the problem of determining the origin of goods in a situation where they are processed (Articles 2212-2229 of the Civil Law of Latvia – «Contract»). Processing operations are activities with economic impact, that may be applied or not applied to the goods imported into the territory of the European Union. The urgency of the problem concerns the application by the EU Member States and Russia mutual sanctions aimed at restricting trade goods of a particular kind, originating from those or other countries and participating in the relevant activities of trade policy. The problem concerns the fact that the rules of origin establish that the country of origin of goods shall be the country in which the goods were wholly produced or sufficiently processed. If the implementation of the processing operations involved several countries, they are considered as originating from the country where they were subjected to substantial processing in compliance with the criteria of sufficiency, which are used to identify the characteristic properties of a particular type of goods. These criteria relate to the following: 1) a change in the commodity code; 2) the ad valorem share; 3) compliance with the qualifying process conditions (qualifying processes). Many legal sources create a problem of interaction between the rules of law, since the provisions of the relevant international conventions may not be reflected in national legislation. Taking into account not only the urgency of the problem, which is caused by the use of these measures of trade policy, but that the problem is debatable, the goal of the article is to clarify these issues in accordance with the theme.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
origin of goods, classification of goods, processing operations, criteria of originating of the goods, diagonal cumulation, bi-laterial cumulation
2. Council Decision No 2014/658/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ucraine;
3. Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU)
No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destablishing the situation in Ucraine;
4. Case № 2/73 Riseria Luigi Geddo v. Ente Nazionale Risis, [1973] // ECR, 865;
5. Case № 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville, [1974] // ECR, 837;
6. Case № С-267/91 and С-268/9 Criminal v. Bernard Keck & Daniel Mithouard, [1993] // ECR, I-6097;
7. Alehno I., Buka A., Butkevičs J., Jarinovska K., Škoba L. Introduction in Europen Law / Judicial practice and comments // Riga, 2004, P.179-181.;
8. S.Tutāne, A.Čevers. The International Treaties and its Role Customs // Rīga, SESMI, 2010, P.32.-33.;
9. Briede J. Public and Private Law: The Peculiarities of modern theory / Edit. E. Meļķišs. // Rīga: Tiesu namu aģentūra, 1999. – 44.,46.-47.lpp.;
10. Komarov A. Liability in Commercial turnover // Moscow, 1991, P.3;
11. Peter H. Lindert. International Economics. University of California at Davis. Russian Edition // Moscow, 1992, P.19;
12. Rene David, The Basic Systems of Law in Modern World. Russian Edition // Moscow, 1988, P.87;
13. Boyars J. International Private Law // Riga, 2010, P.11;
14. Ņečajevs V. The Peculiarities of Customs debt /The reports of the International Scientific and Practical Conference «SOCIETY. PERSON. SECURITY 2011. Legal Security and Protection of Society, held on April 15-16,2011 in Riga // «Administratīvā un kriminālā justīcija», 2011, Nr.2/3 (55/56).-120.lpp.
15. Zirjaeva Е. The Economic Examination in Customs and Foreign Trade // S’kt Peterburg, «Peter», 2003, P.308;
16. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, Chapter Second «Origin of goods», Articles 22.-27.;
17. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 Articles 35.-123.;
18. Ņečajevs V. The Algorithm of coding of goods and juridical fact // Latvian Economist, 2001, No11(112), P.88-90.
19. http://itar-tass.com/ekonomika/1367515
20. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products // OJ L210/29, 07.08.1985, P.0029-0033;
21. Directive 1999/34/EC of the European parliament end of the Council of 10 May 1999, amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products // OJ Nr.L141, 04.06.1999, P.0020 – 0021
22. Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) // OJ No 199/40, 31.07.2007.