Helsinki Administrative Court issues decision on excise duty for cross-border alcohol sales
- Nordic Alcohol and Drug Policy Network
- Jun 18
- 2 min read
18.06.2025 - A German company had sold alcoholic beverages subject to excise duty to a private individual through a Finnish-language online store. The products were transported from Germany to Finland by a third-party shipping company, which the buyer paid separately. The company’s website recommended certain transport companies during the purchase process and provided information on the associated delivery costs. The Finnish Tax Administration had ordered the company to pay the excise duties for the alcohol sold.
The key issue before the Administrative Court was whether the company had, within the meaning of Article 36(1) of the Excise Duty Directive, indirectly sent or transported the alcohol to the customer. If so, the arrangement would qualify as distance selling, making the company liable to pay excise duties in Finland.
At an earlier stage, the Administrative Court had referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), seeking guidance on interpreting the applicable directive (2008/118/EC) at the time of the transaction. The CJEU issued its judgment in Case C-596/23 on 19 December 2024.
In its ruling, the CJEU stated that Article 36(1) of the directive must be interpreted to mean that a seller is liable to pay excise duties in the destination Member State if the seller influences the buyer’s choice by recommending or facilitating the use of specific carriers for shipping the alcoholic products. The fact that the buyer entered into two separate contracts - one with the seller and another with the shipping company - was deemed irrelevant.
Decision of the Helsinki Administrative Court
In its decision issued today, the Helsinki Administrative Court ruled that the company acted as a distance seller and was liable to pay Finnish excise duties on the alcohol it sold, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the Excise Duty Directive and Section 79 of the Finnish Excise Duty Act. The court dismissed the company’s appeal against the Tax Administration’s decision.
The court found, based on the available evidence, that the company had recommended and facilitated the use of specific shipping companies, thereby influencing the buyer’s choice. This meant the company had indirectly participated in the shipment of the alcoholic beverages. The fact that the buyer could have chosen another shipping option did not change the assessment. Nor did the company's website disclaimer - stating that the buyer was responsible for paying Finnish taxes - affect the classification of the arrangement as distance selling.
Source: Helsingin hallinto-oikeus
