After the demonstrations of satisfaction and some concern expressed by the CLECAT, the European Association of Shippers and Customs, with respect to the EU Council's Friday Agreement on the reform of Community rules in customs matters(of 27 June 2025), the same CLECAT together with ECASBA, European Shipowners, European Sea Ports Organisation, Feport and World Shipping Council, the other main associations that represent in Europe the marine and harbour sector, have jointly communicated their favor the adoption of the general orientation of the Council of the EU, that - they have specified - represents an improvement regarding the proposal of the European Commission, and the recognition of the need that the customs union begins to operate as a single entity. However, they also urged 'the Member States, Parliament and the Commission to finalize the agreement, not before having resolved several outstanding issues which could compromise the success of the reform, as is evident from the versions of the text before adoption'.

In particular, the representations of the maritime-port sector have explained that they have welcomed "the amendments proposed by the Council that restore the current provisions in the matter of temporary storage of the goods in the ports of the EU. This - they have found - is fundamental to ports, terminals, importers, exporters and all those who depend on the marine supply chain. The proposal of the Council to maintain the time limit to 90 days, while allowing prorogues in specific circumstances - they observed - is essential for the proper functioning of the harbour operations and the logistic chains (marittime). The hub and spoke model of the marine transport of line - they have specified CLECAT, ECASBA, European Shipowners, ESPO, Feport and WSC - is based on the transhipment, which in turn depends on an efficient temporary storage regimen. All parties need to eliminate unnecessary operating, administrative and IT costs. The text consulted by the sector also includes detailed provisions on authorizations and handling of goods between temporary storage facilities, which will facilitate commercial activities. Finally, considering the high volumes enlivened in the ports of the EU, it is essential that the Trusted Operators of temporary storage structures may require an exemption of the guarantee, since this is fundamental to safeguard their financial solvency. We therefore urge the coegislators to maintain this facilitation open also to the companies currently certified AEO-C".

The six associations expressed favour, moreover, regarding the fact that the Member States have supported the proposal of the introduction of the EU customs data hub, but underline the importance that, in order to emphasize the simplification, competitiveness and harmonization, the EU Maritime Single Window is able to connect and provide data to the hub of customs data.

As anticipated by the CLECAT, the other associations also expressed considerable concern about the designation of a single importer responsible for all non-tax compliance obligations relating to goods. "Although the proposals claim that there is only one importer - they have found the associations - in other points it is also stated that there may be different importers at different times. This is the recipe for confusion on the legal level. For example, the General Approach would require that a carrier carrying goods between Asia and the United States through a transhipment port of the EU assumes the responsibilities of an EU importer. Such rules are neither fair nor effective. A carrier that manages tens of thousands of containers simply cannot simply the same responsibilities that an importer has for those individual goods. Terminal operators manage similar amounts of goods and therefore cannot assume the role of importer, due to associated costs and lack of access to correct information. Insist on this aspect could weaken the role of the ports of the EU as a hub of transhipment". According to CLECAT, ECASBA, European Shipowners, ESPO, Feport and WSC, "the parties should never be held responsible for the accuracy of the data that they faithfully present on behalf of their customers, but that they do not generate in the course of their activity and that they do not have the means to verify them".

CLECAT, ECASBA, European Shipowners, ESPO, Feport and WSC have also said that the Member States seem to have categorically rejected all the proposals of the European Commission aimed at reducing the enormous inconsistencies between Member States and the application by these sanctions for violations. This weakens the Customs Union. To facilitate trade and improve the ability of the authorities to counter illicit economic activities, it is essential to prevent divergences in the application of sanctions, penalties and control measures throughout the EU.'