Executive summary — Common storage and administrative allocation of customs status within an integrated terminal
The common storage arrangement allows equivalent Union and non-Union goods to be stored within an integrated storage facility and their customs status to be accounted for through the records where physical identification is not possible at all times, or would only be possible at disproportionate cost. The relevant storage facility may comprise several tanks and associated product-containing pipelines; it does not necessarily correspond to a single individual tank. This follows from Article 177 of the UCC Delegated Regulation and is expressly supported by the European Commission’s “tank pit” example. European Commission, Special Procedures Guidance, pp. 120 and 122
The basis is the actual storage arrangements and operations, not merely the presence of product in pipelines. The decisive distinction is:
Not: “There is product in the pipelines, so the entire tank farm constitutes common storage.”
Rather: “The actual storage arrangements and movements of goods within the relevant configuration of tanks and product-containing pipelines make physical identification by customs status impossible at all times.”
Common storage and accounting segregation are closely connected, but they are not the same. Common storage concerns the actual storage of goods. Accounting segregation subsequently maintains the distinction in the records by type of goods, customs status and, where applicable, origin. It safeguards customs supervision despite the inability to physically distinguish the goods at all times. The records therefore do not independently establish common storage; they make the authorised arrangement auditable. European Commission, guidance, pp. 49–50 and 120
Upon loading, customs status is allocated on the basis of the relevant customs warehouse records. To the extent that the authorised common storage encompasses the integrated configuration, the available stock of qualifying goods within that storage facility forms the basis for allocation. No greater quantity may be allocated than is actually present in the customs warehouse with the relevant status. A separate customs-status balance for each individual tank is therefore not automatically the allocation limit. Dutch Customs Handbook, section 6.4
Historical policy and current European guidance support this approach. For mineral oils, the former Handbook expressly took the boundaries of the tank site as the starting point and permitted, subject to conditions, the substitution of equivalent consignments between tanks. Under the UCC, the European “tank pit” example confirms that common storage may encompass several connected tanks, provided they contain the same product with the same CN code, commercial quality and technical characteristics. The core function—replacing physical differentiation with accountability through the records—has therefore been preserved, without all the former policy conditions necessarily having been carried forward unchanged. Former Dutch Customs Handbook, sections 8.2–8.2.3 European Commission, guidance, p. 122
The biodiesel judgments define the limits of this arrangement, but do not reject it as a general principle. In ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2023:8715, the court found that the consignments concerned were physically separated and individually identifiable. Residues in pipelines and tank heels did not justify treating all tank stocks as commonly stored. In ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:990, the Court of Appeal emphasises this physical separation as a particular feature of the case. The judgments therefore concern the administrative substitution of separated consignments, rather than an independent assessment of a terminal duly authorised under the UCC. District Court of Noord-Holland, paragraphs 47–53 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, paragraphs 4.4–4.6
Conclusion
There is a substantiated basis for continuing the arrangement described where the actual storage arrangements and flows of goods prevent physical identification at all times, the relevant common storage and accounting arrangements are covered by the authorisation, and compliance with stock limits can be verified. The biodiesel judgments do not, in themselves, provide grounds for rejecting this practice. Product equivalence and specific statutory restrictions, including those applicable to certain goods subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties, continue to apply separately. The European guidance supports this interpretation but is not legally binding. European Commission, disclaimer and p. 120
The basis is the actual storage arrangements and operations, not merely the presence of product in pipelines. The decisive distinction is:
Not: “There is product in the pipelines, so the entire tank farm constitutes common storage.”
Rather: “The actual storage arrangements and movements of goods within the relevant configuration of tanks and product-containing pipelines make physical identification by customs status impossible at all times.”
Common storage and accounting segregation are closely connected, but they are not the same. Common storage concerns the actual storage of goods. Accounting segregation subsequently maintains the distinction in the records by type of goods, customs status and, where applicable, origin. It safeguards customs supervision despite the inability to physically distinguish the goods at all times. The records therefore do not independently establish common storage; they make the authorised arrangement auditable. European Commission, guidance, pp. 49–50 and 120
Upon loading, customs status is allocated on the basis of the relevant customs warehouse records. To the extent that the authorised common storage encompasses the integrated configuration, the available stock of qualifying goods within that storage facility forms the basis for allocation. No greater quantity may be allocated than is actually present in the customs warehouse with the relevant status. A separate customs-status balance for each individual tank is therefore not automatically the allocation limit. Dutch Customs Handbook, section 6.4
Historical policy and current European guidance support this approach. For mineral oils, the former Handbook expressly took the boundaries of the tank site as the starting point and permitted, subject to conditions, the substitution of equivalent consignments between tanks. Under the UCC, the European “tank pit” example confirms that common storage may encompass several connected tanks, provided they contain the same product with the same CN code, commercial quality and technical characteristics. The core function—replacing physical differentiation with accountability through the records—has therefore been preserved, without all the former policy conditions necessarily having been carried forward unchanged. Former Dutch Customs Handbook, sections 8.2–8.2.3 European Commission, guidance, p. 122
The biodiesel judgments define the limits of this arrangement, but do not reject it as a general principle. In ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2023:8715, the court found that the consignments concerned were physically separated and individually identifiable. Residues in pipelines and tank heels did not justify treating all tank stocks as commonly stored. In ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:990, the Court of Appeal emphasises this physical separation as a particular feature of the case. The judgments therefore concern the administrative substitution of separated consignments, rather than an independent assessment of a terminal duly authorised under the UCC. District Court of Noord-Holland, paragraphs 47–53 Amsterdam Court of Appeal, paragraphs 4.4–4.6
Conclusion
There is a substantiated basis for continuing the arrangement described where the actual storage arrangements and flows of goods prevent physical identification at all times, the relevant common storage and accounting arrangements are covered by the authorisation, and compliance with stock limits can be verified. The biodiesel judgments do not, in themselves, provide grounds for rejecting this practice. Product equivalence and specific statutory restrictions, including those applicable to certain goods subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties, continue to apply separately. The European guidance supports this interpretation but is not legally binding. European Commission, disclaimer and p. 120
No Comments