Exemple de utilizare a Offence or irregularity în Engleză și traducerile lor în Română
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Programming
Member States shall take the necessary measures to deal with any offence or irregularity and to impose effective penalties.
When, in the course of movement, an offence or irregularity has been detected without it being possible to determine where it was committed, it shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was detected.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to deal with any offence or irregularity and to impose effective penalties.
When an offence or irregularity under the TIR Convention gives rise to a customs debt in the Community, the provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other charges mentioned in Article 91(1)(a) of the Code.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to deal with any offence or irregularity and to impose effective penalties.
Where it is established that the offence or irregularity was committed in a Member State other than the one in which the proceedings were initiated, the coordinating office of the first Member State shall close the file as far as it is concerned.
The customs administrations of the Member States shall take the necessary measures to deal with any offence or irregularity and to impose effective penalties.
Where it is not possible to determine in which territory the offence or irregularity was committed, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was noted.
The guarantee covering the transit operation shall not be released until the end of theaforementioned three-year period or until the duties and other charges applicable in the Member State where the said offence or irregularity was actually committed have been paid.
If, before the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the accompanyingdocument was drawn up, the Member State where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is ascertained, that Member States shall collect the excise duty at the rate in force on the date when the goods were dispatched.
Moreover, the three-month timelimit is also intended to protect the interests of the principal by allowing him sufficient time in which to furnish, where appropriate, proof of the regularity ofthe transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed SPKR.
Where an offence or irregularity is found to have been committed in the course of or in connection with a transit operation carried out under cover of an ATA carnet, the customs authorities shall notify the holder of the ATA carnet and the guaranteeing association within the period prescribed in Article 6(4) of the ATA Convention.
Unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Customs Code.
Without prejudice to Article 215 of the Code, where the consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed.
Where no such proof is furnished and the said offence or irregularity is thus deemed to have been committed in the Member State in which it was detected, the duties and other charges relating to the goods concerned shall be levied by that Member State in accordance with Community or national provisions.
The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate, in particular, the time limit by which proof of the regularity ofthe transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed must be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
The Member State to which the office of departure belongs is, in principle, competent, since Article 378(1) of the implementing regulation creates such a presumption where, first, the consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and, secondly,the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established.
The coordinating office of the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed shall take over the recovery proceedings and where necessary collect from the guaranteeing association with which it is connected the amount of duties and other charges due at the rates in force in the Member State where this office is situated.
Where a number of offences or irregularities have occurred in various Member States, the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs duties is the State in which the first offence or irregularity was committed(see, by analogy, Liberexim, paragraph 57).
Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month timelimits laid down by Article 379(1) and(2) of Regulation No 2454/93.
Where the amount of the duties and other charges originally levied and returned by the Member State which had recovered them is smaller than that of the duties andother charges due in the Member State where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, that Member State shall levy the difference in accordance with Community or national provisions.
If the Member State where the said offence or irregularity was actually committed is subsequently determined, the duties and other charges(apart from those levied, pursuant to the second subparagraph, as own resources of the Community) to which the goods are liable in that Member State shall be returned to it by the Member State which had originally recovered them.
Where an irregularity or offence has been committed in the course of a movement involving the chargeability of excise duty,the excise duty shall be due in the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed from the naturalor legal person who guaranteed payment of the excise duties in accordance with Article 15(3).
Where it is not possible to determine in which territory the offence or irregularity was committed, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed in the Member State where it was detected unless, within the period referred to in Article 457d(2), proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
Where the amount of the duties and other charges originally levied and reimboursed by the Member State which recovered themis smaller than that of the duties and other charges due in the Member State where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, that Member State shall levy the difference in accordance with Community or national provisions.
If, subsequently, the Member State where the said offence or irregularity was actually committed is determined, the duties and other charges(apart from those levied, pursuant to the second subparagraph, as own resources of the Community) to which the goods are liable in that Member State shall be reimbursed to it by the Member State which originally recovered them.
It follows from the wording itself of Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation that it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within those 11-month and3-month timelimits where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established.
Whereas in the context of national provisions, excise duty should, in the event of an offence or irregularity, be collected in principle by the Member State on whose territory the offence or irregularity has been committed, or by the Member State where the offence or irregularity was ascertained, or, in the event of non-presentation in the Member State of destination, by the Member State of departure;
In the Member State to which the office of transit at the point of entry into the Community belongs, to which a transit advice note has been given, unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.