do we really have to avoid Belgium at all costs?

[sailorman]

My club secretary told me today that he had been in touch with the director of Customs and Excise, who assured him that no fines would be levied, provided we have the paperwork to prove that the appropriate tax was paid in the UK. This should apply both to local and visiting yachts.
That is definitely a different line than I was given last Sunday by three Customs officers on the pontoon. It seems the director still has some communications work to do within his own organisation.
So the bottom line seems to be: do not pay any fines for red diesel.

Hi
what club pls
also would it be possible to have a copy of the letter

 

[Burnham Bob]

that letter would be very helpful........if you could get a copy westhinder it would be much appreciated

 

[westhinder]

that letter would be very helpful........if you could get a copy westhinder it would be much appreciated

I am afraid he did not put that in writing, I gather it was a conversation. Not much to show the Customs patrol, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Hoolie]

I am afraid he did not put that in writing, I gather it was a conversation. Not much to show the Customs patrol, I'm sorry to say.

But it might help to have the name and contact details of the director of Customs and Excise if you have it?

 

[mihtjel]

Many vessels (EU registered and otherwise) sailing north via the Channel Isles will fill up there and there is no legislation that prohibits passage through EU waters on account of the source of the fuel used on board. The claimed punitive attitude of certain cusoms officials to British boats entering their waters with red diesel is unenforcable, whatever they state. They would be de facto inhibiting free passage, a fundamental right of EU residents and visa carrying foreigners.

There are two concepts I think you may be referring to here: The free movement of goods and services within the EU, and the right of innocent passage through territorial waters.

First, movement of goods and services within the EU: There is a limitation in place for fuel beyond what is in the regular fuel tank of vehicles. I haven't found the actual EU legislation, but the Danish text of the rules have them only apply to road vehicles and their fuel tanks. There are special rules for commercial ships, but these specifically do not apply to small recreational craft. Based purely on this, the current EU legislation may well allow the member countries to levy duty on fuel imported in fuel tanks of recreational craft.

Edit: In fact, I found the relevant directive at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0012:en:HTML - Article 9, section 3:

3. Member States may also provide that excise duty shall become chargeable in the Member State of consumption on the acquisition of mineral oils already released for consumption in antoher(sic) Member State if such products are transported using atypical modes of transport by private individuals or on their behalf. Atypical transport shall mean the transport of fuels other than in the tanks of vehicles or in appropriate reserve fuel canisters and the transport of liquid heating products other than by means of tankers used on behalf of professional traders.

Tanks of vehicles should cover boats, I suppose - but in some areas it clearly doesn't :-/

Secondly, the right of innocent passage does not, according to the Danish Maritime Authority legal department, apply if the ship in question stops at a port or anchorage within the territorial waters; so a visit to Belgium would certainly not be protected by this right.

 

[Tranona]

Secondly, the right of innocent passage does not, according to the Danish Maritime Authority legal department, apply if the ship in question stops at a port or anchorage within the territorial waters; so a visit to Belgium would certainly not be protected by this right.

Don't think that is strictly correct. Innocent passage also includes visiting a port on business otherwise trade would come to a halt. There is a view that once a leisure boat starts cruising from one port to another within a country it is no longer on innocent passage, but in reality many countries ignore this and allow foreign vessels to be permanently based in their waters without imposing any local requirements on them.

 

[Tranona]

Just been reading a bit of background to the dispute about "red" and it seems the EU stance is that the legislation is related to marking and not necessarily duty. That is the marking for use in specific applications is the issue, not whether duty has been paid.

 

[PeterGibbs]

There are two concepts I think you may be referring to here: The free movement of goods and services within the EU, and the right of innocent passage through territorial waters.

First, movement of goods and services within the EU: There is a limitation in place for fuel beyond what is in the regular fuel tank of vehicles. I haven't found the actual EU legislation, but the Danish text of the rules have them only apply to road vehicles and their fuel tanks. There are special rules for commercial ships, but these specifically do not apply to small recreational craft. Based purely on this, the current EU legislation may well allow the member countries to levy duty on fuel imported in fuel tanks of recreational craft.

_________________________________________________________

Thanks for this. I understand the action taken by members EU states to prevent trading across borders to take financial advantage of different taxation levels - ciggies and booze are the obvious precedents. Diesel trading across the border between Eire and N Ireland is another more pertinent example. But as yachties we know we are not prima facie suspects for this kind of trading: MOBO's might have on board capacity to carry fuel for trading but yachts do not.

No one I know of has been charged with trading the fuel from his yacht. It's so unlikely you would think it a trifling target for even the Belgian authorties.

If one or more EU countries seeks to have red diesel prohibited for all EU registered pleasure vessels, there is only one constitutional means to achive this and that is through the council of ministers. To my knowledge this has not taken place and the Belgians are on the face of it acting unilaterally in seeking to impose their view.

Even if the EU took this measure, would fuel purchased in the Channel Isles then disqualify visiting vessels from any EU port? It all runs against the grain of offering free passage, access to port / assistance / safety on the high seas etc etc.

As I mentioned above, I have submitted the red diesel question and Belgian practices for an EU parliamentary question. There will be a response and even if that does not nail the issue I suspect we will all be on firmer ground.

PWG

 

[mihtjel]

Don't think that is strictly correct. Innocent passage also includes visiting a port on business otherwise trade would come to a halt.

You're right, I've reviewed the UNCLOS article in question, and it specifically mentions that.

There is a view that once a leisure boat starts cruising from one port to another within a country it is no longer on innocent passage, but in reality many countries ignore this and allow foreign vessels to be permanently based in their waters without imposing any local requirements on them.

While I will not dispute that many if not most countries will ignore this, it is certainly the view of the Danish Maritime Authority that passage between ports within the same country is not legally protected by the rules of innocent passage within the territorial waters of said country. (sadly the communication I have from them is in Danish, so it's probably not much use here...)

 

[Tranona]

.

While I will not dispute that many if not most countries will ignore this, it is certainly the view of the Danish Maritime Authority that passage between ports within the same country is not legally protected by the rules of innocent passage within the territorial waters of said country. (sadly the communication I have from them is in Danish, so it's probably not much use here...)

Would be interesting to know whether that position results in any action to make visitors comply with local registration requirements. You may well find that the principle of "comity" - that is mutual respect of another country's laws is applied.

About 10 years ago the NZ authorities tried to impose local rquirements on visiting yachts to the extent of detaining them if they tried to leave the country. They were taken to court (in NZ) and the principle of comity was upheld and the authoity's action declared unlawful.

 

[mihtjel]

Would be interesting to know whether that position results in any action to make visitors comply with local registration requirements. You may well find that the principle of "comity" - that is mutual respect of another country's laws is applied.

About 10 years ago the NZ authorities tried to impose local rquirements on visiting yachts to the extent of detaining them if they tried to leave the country. They were taken to court (in NZ) and the principle of comity was upheld and the authoity's action declared unlawful.

I'm sure there's not going to be any registration requirements applied, but local safety rules - for instance that there must be a life jacket for every person on board - as well as customs rules are likely to be applied. For instance, as I understand it, alcohol from duty free stores is not to be used for ships in transit between ports within the same country, except as specified in the rules of the individual country.

When it comes to leaving the country to go to a foreign port, I would except the right of innocent passage to apply again.

 

[Tranona]

It is the registration requirements - that is safety equipment, range of operation, crewing requirements that are the critical ones. That is, can they force you to comply with local requirements. There are of course many other laws such as those related to customs or immigration that people have to comply with, but it is those that are related to the boat where it is the state of registration which sets out the requirements.

So, when I kept my boat in Greece, but registered in UK, I did not have to meet any local registration requirements, but I did have to comply with the requirement for a movement log. There are many other examples of local requirements that have to be met such as light dues in Portugal or evidence of competence, but little firm evidence of imposition of the narrow range of equipment requirements.