It follows from paragraph 24 of the judgement of the European Court of Justice that the liability of the main carrier or the transport subcontractor is based on physical control of the goods and the knowledge that they are moving under Community transit. In the present case, it was undisputed that the defendant had transported the cargo container containing the goods to the car park of the customs office of destination in Vienna within the applicable deadline and the goods had remained there at the defendant’s trailer until their further transportation to Italy. In Vienna, the defendant also handed over the documents necessary for conducting the customs procedure to his principal. By virtue of paragraphs 31 34 of the judgement of the European Court of Justice, a carrier who transfers control of the goods and the documents pertaining thereto to another carrier by handing over the goods has, in principle, discharged the obligation to produce the goods intact at the customs office of destination, provided that the second carrier is aware that the goods are moving under Community transit. The aforementioned situation is undoubtedly true for the main carrier, and it has also been confirmed by the witness testimony of the representative of the main carrier. The Curia agreed with the legal standpoint of the second instance judgement according to which it could not have been deduced from the judgement of the European Court of Justice that the defendant should have been bound by an obligation to verify the lawful conclusion of the customs procedure at the Vienna customs office prior to the further transportation of the goods in question.