Klingbeil promises relief. Customs demands 57,942 euros for 24 hours in a warehouse.

Lars Klingbeil took his Zollfinanzgerechtigkeitsgesetz, the customs finance justice act, through cabinet on 12 August 2026. His announcement: “With this we are sending a clear signal to criminals: we are stepping up the pace! At the same time we are relieving honest citizens and companies.”^[1] I take the federal finance minister at his word. Using a case from my own company I show what is missing from the act for that. On 19 October 2026 I wrote to him about it, with a finished text for the law.

The case is also available as a video of a good five minutes: To the video.

What happened

In March 2026 we had 20,880 litres of vodka mixer filled into cans in Poland, at 5 per cent alcohol, on 29 pallets. The goods were destined for a customer in Spain. The lorry travelled via our alcohol duty warehouse in Paderborn, which customs has authorised. There the goods stood for around 24 hours, with the pallets left unopened.

Every step was declared in EMCS. That is the electronic system with which the EU states monitor the movement of untaxed goods such as alcohol. For alcopops moving untaxed between EU countries, customs requires it without exception.^[3]

In Germany the goods were not saleable. The cans carried no German deposit mark and not the notice “supply to persons under 18 prohibited” that the Jugendschutzgesetz, the act on the protection of minors, requires for alcopops.^[4] The goods are taxed in Spain.

Two duties, one lorry

For the alcohol duty the case is closed: zero euros. The Bielefeld main customs office confirms that the goods were under duty suspension throughout. Duty suspension means that as long as alcohol is moving between authorised duty warehouses and is accompanied in EMCS, no duty falls due. It arises only where the goods reach the trade.^[5]

For the alcopop duty the same customs administration demands 57,942 euros. The alcopop duty is a purely German special duty. The Bundestag introduced it in 2004 in order to make alcopops so expensive “that they are no longer bought by young people”.^[6] For movements with other EU states the act has since referred “by analogy” to coffee duty.^[7] Under coffee duty law the duty arises as soon as someone takes receipt of goods from another EU state in Germany.^[8] Coffee knows no European system of duty suspension. Alcopops run entirely within it, because they contain alcohol.

Our warehouse is authorised by customs as an alcohol duty warehouse. For alcopops customs requires a second, separate authorisation as an alcopop duty warehouse, for the same hall. That one was missing.

The duty amounts to more than 3.5 times the value of the goods. A duty to protect young people, levied on goods that no young person in Germany could ever have bought.

For comparison: in 2024 the alcopop duty brought the federal government around 1.4 million euros in total. For 2025 the finance ministry reports minus 237,000 euros.^[9] Our single lorry load corresponds to a good 4 per cent of the entire yield for 2024.

Why there is no refund

The act provides for a refund where taxed goods are demonstrably delivered to a recipient in another EU country.^[8] The proof is there without a gap: EMCS documents entry into the Spanish duty warehouse. The refund fails all the same, and in this way:

1. Anyone wanting the refund needs an advance assurance certificate from the main customs office.^[10][11]

2. The assurance certificate has to be applied for before the delivery. It is not available afterwards.^[10]

3. The form for the refund requires the number of the assurance certificate. The main customs office refuses it, so the form cannot be filled in.

On 16 October 2026 the Düsseldorf tax court rejected our urgent application. By the letter of the law that is understandable. By its purpose it is not.

Who is now occupied with this

Occupied with this single lorry load are now: the Bielefeld main customs office, the Düsseldorf tax court with three judges, our tax advisers and our management. If we pursue the action, the Federal Fiscal Court and possibly the European Court of Justice will follow.

Not a litre of these goods was drunk in Germany. If the federal government forgoes the duty, it loses nothing that is owed to it: the goods are taxed in Spain. This is the opposite of relief, for us and for the administration itself. And it hits every company that moves alcopops through the EU via a German warehouse.

What the new customs act changes

Klingbeil’s act restructures customs. 41 main customs offices and 8 customs investigation offices become 41 customs directorates. Customs gains new powers against money laundering and financial crime, among them a procedure allowing assets of unclear origin to be confiscated even without criminal proceedings.^[2] That may be right. The rules by which customs treats honest companies the act does not touch.

The Kaffeesteuergesetz does appear in the draft, even § 17, under which the duty arose in our case. All that is changed in it are the names of authorities: “the main customs office” becomes “the customs directorate”. The Alkopopsteuergesetz and the Kaffeesteuerverordnung with the assurance certificate do not appear in the draft at all.^[2]

And the promised relief? In the bill itself it says: “No compliance cost arises for business.”^[2] Compliance cost is the time and money an act demands of citizens, companies and administration. No compliance cost means: no additional burden, but also no relief that the ministry quantifies. According to the press release something else is meant: “Where customs controls more efficiently and in a more targeted way, honest citizens and companies are relieved.”^[1]

Fewer checks do not help us. What helps us is a rule that does not let a delivery documented without a gap fail on a missing form.

The Bundestag debated the draft in first reading on 9 October 2026. On 2 November the finance committee hears experts. The act is to enter into force on 1 January 2027.^[2][12][13] So an article can still be added.

The ministry knows the problem

A second bill from the same house is remarkable. With the 2027 budget accompanying act the federal government wants to raise the alcopop duty by 20 per cent, to 6,660 euros per 100 litres of pure alcohol. In the same article it replaces the rule on which our case turns. In future the act is to read: “Without prejudice to subsection 2, the alcopop duty arises where alcohol duty arises for an alcopop.” The reference to coffee duty falls away; procedure and relief will then follow the Alkoholsteuergesetz. The explanatory memorandum expressly mentions “a future use of EMCS”.^[14]

On that wording no alcopop duty would have arisen in our case, because no alcohol duty arose either. So the ministry has seen the gap itself. But it wants to close it only on 1 January 2027. For the cases before that the draft provides nothing. It has not been adopted yet; the budget committee heard experts on 12 October.^[14][15]

What I proposed to the minister

Three amendments close the gap. They cost the federal government nothing and touch neither the protection of minors nor the tax yield:

1. Alignment with alcohol duty. Anyone delivering under duty suspension in EMCS and taking the goods into an authorised alcohol duty warehouse is exempt from alcopop duty too. No second authorisation for the same hall.

2. Refund on EMCS proof. Where EMCS documents the delivery into another EU country, that proof is enough. The assurance certificate remains for cases without electronic proof.

3. A transitional rule. The main customs offices may waive the duty in past cases where it is proven that the goods arrived in another EU country and were taxed there. Pending proceedings then end without a court.

The first two points the ministry intends to implement in essence itself with the budget accompanying act from 2027. All the less speaks against regulating the third at the same time. The customs act is to enter into force on the same day and is currently before the finance committee. One section would be enough.

I am available to the ministry for a conversation and will make all the documents available. We will pursue our proceedings further, to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg if need be. I would prefer the legislator to solve the problem before a court has to. Mr Klingbeil has just created the opportunity for that himself.

If you know of similar cases: write to me via the contact form. I am collecting them.

Andreas W. HerbFounder and CEO MBG Group, Paderborn

The proposal in full

Annex 2 to the letter of 19 October 2026, intended as an additional article in the draft of the customs finance justice act. The editorial team has corrected one reference: the letter says in § 3 subsection 2 sentence 2 “§ 2 subsection 1 sentence 1 number 3 of the Alkoholsteuergesetz”. That provision does not exist; § 2 there governs the rate of duty. Movement under duty suspension from, to and through other member states is governed by § 15 subsection 1.^[5] Otherwise the text is unchanged. What follows is a translation of the German original, which is the authoritative wording.

Article [X] – Amendment of the Alkopopsteuergesetz

The Alkopopsteuergesetz of 23 July 2004 (BGBl. I p. 1857), last amended by […], is amended as follows:

1. § 3 subsection 2 is given the following wording:

“(2) ¹For the bringing in and the movement of alcopops from, to or through other member states, the provisions of the Kaffeesteuergesetz apply by analogy, unless otherwise provided in sentences 2 and 3. ²Where alcopops are moved under duty suspension in accordance with the provisions of the Alkoholsteuergesetz with the electronic administrative document, they are, with regard to alcopop duty as well, within a procedure of duty suspension; § 15 subsection 1 of the Alkoholsteuergesetz applies accordingly. ³A duty warehouse authorised under § 5 of the Alkoholsteuergesetz counts at the same time as a duty warehouse within the meaning of this act; no separate authorisation is required.”

2. After § 3 subsection 2 the following subsection 2a is inserted:

“(2a) ¹Where alcopops demonstrably taxed are brought for commercial purposes into another member state, the duty shall on application be refunded or reimbursed, provided that the movement was carried out with the electronic administrative document in accordance with the provisions of the Alkoholsteuergesetz and that receipt of the alcopops in the member state of destination is documented by the electronic arrival report. ²In that case no prior assurance certificate and no further proof of taxation or of the fiscal treatment in the member state of destination is required. ³The application is to be made in writing or electronically to the competent main customs office; the use of an officially prescribed form is not a precondition of the refund. ⁴Subsection 2 sentence 1 in conjunction with the refund provisions of the Kaffeesteuergesetz remains unaffected for cases without electronic proof.”

3. After § 4 the following § 4a is inserted:

“§ 4a Transitional provision. ¹Where alcopop duty arose before the [date of entry into force], or was not refunded, solely because an authorisation as an alcopop duty warehouse or an assurance certificate was lacking, it shall on application be waived or refunded, provided that the taxable person proves that the alcopops were brought into another member state and were subject to taxation there. ²The electronic arrival report of the member state of destination suffices as proof. ³The application may be made until [date, twelve months after entry into force]; § 227 of the Abgabenordnung remains unaffected. ⁴Pending objection and court proceedings do not preclude the application.”

The editorial team’s assessment

The main customs office and the tax court applied the law as it stands. The company could have applied for the authorisation as an alcopop duty warehouse and for the assurance certificate before the delivery. Coffee duty law also knows duty-free transit, likewise only after prior notification to the main customs office.^[8][10] In a judgment of 2017 the Düsseldorf tax court justifies the assurance certificate on the ground that customs should be able to examine the goods before export. Without an assurance before the delivery there is no relief, even where taxation in the other country is documented; that is compatible with EU law.^[16] The dispute is about whether a step missing beforehand justifies a duty when EMCS documents the route of the goods without a gap.

EU law permits national duties such as the alcopop duty only where they are, among other things, compatible with the EU rules on excise duties or VAT as regards the point at which they arise and their monitoring.^[17] For excise duties governed uniformly across the EU, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2013 that an application for a refund may not be rejected solely because it was made only after dispatch, where the duty has been paid in the country of destination.^[18] Whether that can be transferred to the alcopop duty has, according to our research, not yet been decided by any court.

If the 2027 budget accompanying act is adopted in this form, proposals 1 and 2 largely take care of themselves from 2027; the new § 3 then also replaces the version the letter proposes. What would remain open is the transitional rule for cases before 2027.^[14] The letter is dated 19 October 2026. No reply from the ministry was available at the time of publication.