WG 2 (data exchange)

1. WG 2 (data exchange) • 2.1 - During the transitional period and till the Single Authorisation electronic information and communication system is implemented, customs authorities involved in the issuing process of a Single Authorisation for simplified procedures (SASP) will communicate and exchange information with each other by e-mail and fax. How should this exchange of information be organised in order to facilitate the dialogue and improve the understanding, thus reducing the timing to reach an agreement and issue the authorisation?

2. WG 2 • Proposals: • Re-use of AEO documentation and database functionalities for necessary information exchange during consultation process shall be evaluated; preference is exchange by e-mail • Establish a central contact point in each MS for consultation procedure to reduce language problems • Use English in all cases another language is inappropriate • Use forms/templates to the most possible extend and encode data as far as possible

3. WG 2 • 2.2 – During this transitional period, how should be the exchange of information of customs declarations concerning to imports/exports under a SASP be organised? • Partially solved for export procedure. Information exchange between Customs Office of Export and Customs Office of Exit already implemented • IE 501 can be adapted to cover necessary information exchange between the Customs Office where the declaration is lodged and the Customs Office where the goods are presented

4. WG 2 • IT-supported harmonised common process to be defined for export and import procedures under SASP. Process workflow and progress (e.g. Dec. accepted, inspection required, released) has to be indicated by centrally administered status for transparency reasons

5. WG 2 • Common harmonised messages have to be defined to ensure they can be instantly processed in the IT-system of the other involved MS. Otherwise paper or e-mail information would have to be exchanged and manually processed by Customs Officers • Consequently necessary transparency of process status cannot be maintained while processing a huge amount of declarations/consignments in parallel • During transition period application of SASP would have limited benefits for the trade while additional burden and uncertainties may occur

6. WG 2 • 2.3 - Shall centralise clearance also cover NCTS-transit (impact on NCTS)? • Pros and cons: • Only one authorisation to apply for (p) • Additional communication and a new Customs Office role to be implemented (c) • Changes of authorisations will need more time because of relaunched consultation process (c)

7. WG 2 • How to deal with third countries (CH, NO, IS) that participate in NCTS in combination with export procedure? • Major changes of current NCTS necessary • Negotiate with EFTA-countries about centralied clearance application in transit procedure • Relationship between necessary investments for changes and achievable benefits have to be evaluated • Need for further research and evaluation

8. WG 2 • 2.4 - Shall CC cover also exit/entry summary declarations? • Only relevant for application of MCC. Exit and entry summary declarations should be consequently covered by centralised clearance as it will be for export and import declarations • Who is responsible for risk analysis/assessment?

9. WG 2 • 2.5 - Shall CC cover summary declaration for temporary storage? • Potential advantages and benefits require further investigation and evaluation in the future according to ongoing changes in Customs legislation and procedures • Local knowledge about facilities and organisation necessary • What Customs Office will decide about detailed location of storage? • Presentation of goods have to be notified anyway to the Customs Office of entry to initialise customs supervision

10. WG 2 • 2.6 - How is entry in the records (access to trader systems) supposed to work when more than one Member State is concerned? • IT-supported harmonised common process to be defined for export and import procedures under SASP. Process workflow and progress (e.g. Dec. accepted, inspection required, released) has to be indicated by centrally administered status for transparency reasons • Common harmonised messages have to be defined to ensure they can be instantly processed in the IT-system of the other involved MS. Otherwise paper or e-mail information would have to be exchanged and manually processed by Customs Officers (similar to Question 2.2)

11. WG 2 • Notification is required from trader that entry into records has been processed. Customs authorities need a trigger to update their records concerning specific consignments and send necessary information to further involved Customs Offices • During transition period consequently necessary transparency of process status cannot be maintained while processing a huge amount of declarations/consignments in parallel

12. WG 2 • 2.7 - The MCC allows that documents (other than customs declarations) are made available in electronic format: what are the requirements? Is there a need for sending electronic documents from one MS to another MS?

13. WG 2 • How are necessary documents to provide? PDF • Will there be a need to provide documents to the Customs Office where the goods are presented? Availability of only declaration data could contain to less specific information for the Customs Office that performs the physical inspection and controls. This could especially be necessary when national restrictions and prohibitions are involved

14. WG 2 • 2.8 - Should the Statistical Authorities be involved in the authorisation procedure for SASP holders in order to assure the statistical reporting for those holders? • Yes! It shall be assured that economic operators meet the statistical requirements when using SASP. This proposal is recommended by the WG. Otherwise a lot of bilateral agreements between companies and national StatisticalAuthorities are necessary that might have impact on the Customs processes

15. WG 2 • 2.9 - Should Customs provide as early as possible data on the Member State of destination on import (box 17a) and Member State of actual export on export (box15a)? • Data should be provided to national Statistics as soon as possible

16. WG 2 • 2.10 - Should Customs administrations provide for the data exchange in case the Member State of declaration is different from the Member State of destination/actual export (i.e. Centralised Clearance and Rotterdam Effect) or should the statistical authorities establish their own data exchange system?

17. WG 2 • One option could be to exchange necessary information for statistics via Customs • Trade prefers a single European window solution an re-use of already provided information

18. WG 2 • 2.11 - In the case of a Customs based exchange system: • Should the data exchange be established between Customs administrations or should Customs deliver the data directly to the Statistical offices (e.g. through SPEED)? • Should one standardised system replace the current 27 local data transmission solutions between national customs and statistical authorities, or should the system only deal with data exchange in the case the Member State of declaration is different from the Member State of destination/actual export? • What data should be exchanged; only those needed for Community purposes or in addition those for national statistics or a complete copy of the Customs declaration? This solution would allow to use the information exchange for other purposes related with centralised clearance, as the sharing of the collection costs under the Administrative Arrangement, thus reducing the administrative burden of the Authorising Customs Authority. • How could the risk of failure of the system be prevented?

19. WG 2 • Possible options need further investigation and evalution • An in depht-analysis seems to be necessary to figure out consequences