Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 February 2020 — ‘Lifosa’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: ‘Lifosa’ AB

Defendant and respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Are Articles 29(1) and 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 ¹ of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 70(1) and 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 ² of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction (customs) value must be adjusted to include all the costs actually incurred by the seller (producer) in transporting the goods to the place where they were brought into the customs territory of the European Union (Community) when, as in the present case, (1) under the delivery conditions (‘Incoterms 2000’ — DAF) the obligation to cover those costs was borne by the seller (producer) and (2) those costs of transport exceeded the price that was agreed upon and was actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer), but (3) the price actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer) corresponded to the real value of the goods, even if that price was insufficient to cover all the costs of transport incurred by the seller (producer)?

____________

¹ OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

² OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.