The IE-599 Message (Now CC599C) as Official Documentation
The electronic IE-599 message—now designated CC599C under the updated nomenclature—generated within the European Union’s Export Control System (ECS), performs an indispensable function in documenting the exportation of goods beyond EU territory. The judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź, rendered on June 12, 2025,^1 when interpreted in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s seminal ruling of October 17, 2019, in Case C-653/18 (*Unitel*),^2 furnishes critical guidance concerning the evidentiary weight accorded to this instrument and the boundaries within which tax authorities may legitimately challenge its validity.
The Legal Character of the IE-599 Communication (Now CC599C)
A. Official Document Status
The Łódź court unequivocally determined that the IE-599 communication (now CC599C) possesses the character of an official document within the meaning of Article 194(1) of the Tax Ordinance.^3 This classification entails that the document constitutes proof of the matters officially certified therein—in this instance, the physical departure of goods from the customs territory of the European Union.
The ECS, implemented across all Member States, ensures comprehensive digitalization of export procedures. From the initial submission of the customs declaration through final confirmation of goods departure, the entire procedure is electronically processed and monitored. The IE-599 communication (now CC599C), transmitted to the exporter by the customs office of export, represents formal attestation that export procedures have been duly completed.
B. The Presumption of Authenticity Attaching to the IE-599 / CC599C
As an official document, the IE-599 (now CC599C) enjoys a presumption of veracity. So long as it remains legally effective, the communication constitutes evidence of export, the displacement of which requires successful presentation of countervailing proof pursuant to Article 194(3) of the Tax Ordinance. Significantly, the Łódź court observed that determinations made by tax administrations of non-EU states—in the case at bar, Ukraine and Russia—are insufficient to overcome this evidentiary presumption.
Conditions for Export Exemption Under CJEU Jurisprudence
A. Material Criteria for Export Supplies
The CJEU’s judgment in Case C-653/18 articulates with precision the conditions under which an export of goods occurs and the corresponding exemption applies. Two requirements must be satisfied conjunctively: first, the right to dispose of the goods as owner must have been transferred to the purchaser; and second, the supplier must demonstrate that the goods were dispatched or transported beyond EU territory and, as a consequence of such dispatch, physically departed therefrom.
The Court emphasized the objective character of the concept of “supply of goods”—it applies irrespective of the purposes or outcomes of the transactions in question, without imposing upon tax authorities any obligation to investigate the intentions of the taxable person.
B. Non-Identification of the Purchaser Does Not Preclude Export Treatment
Of cardinal importance is the CJEU’s position that classification of a transaction as a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 146(1)(a) and (b) of the VAT Directive cannot be made conditional upon identification of the purchaser. The circumstance that exported goods are acquired outside the EU by an entity not named on the invoice, or by an entity whose identity remains undetermined, does not preclude satisfaction of the objective criteria for export.
To require in all cases that the purchaser of goods in a third country be identified—without examining whether the material conditions for exemption have been fulfilled, particularly the departure of the relevant goods from EU customs territory—would contravene both the principle of proportionality and the principle of fiscal neutrality.
The Boundaries of Export Exemption Denial
A. The Two Permissible Grounds for Refusal
The CJEU identified only two circumstances in which non-compliance with formal requirements may result in forfeiture of the right to VAT exemption.
The first concerns situations where violation of a formal requirement effectively precludes presentation of convincing evidence that material requirements have been satisfied. Where failure to identify the actual purchaser renders it impossible in a given case to demonstrate that the transaction constitutes a supply of goods, this circumstance may justify denial of the export exemption.
The second ground relates to tax fraud. The principle of fiscal neutrality cannot be invoked by a taxable person who has intentionally participated in tax evasion and thereby jeopardized the functioning of the common VAT system. Exemption may properly be refused where the taxable person knew or ought to have known that the transaction was connected with fraud committed to the detriment of the common VAT system.
B. Protection of Good Faith Operators
The CJEU has consistently afforded protection to taxable persons acting in good faith. A supplier cannot be held liable for VAT payment irrespective of participation in fraud committed by the purchaser. To attribute to a taxable person the loss of tax revenue caused by fraudulent conduct of third parties over whom the taxable person exercises no control would be manifestly disproportionate.
Consequences of Successfully Challenging Export Status
A. The Prohibition on Automatic Domestic Supply Classification
The CJEU’s judgment in Case C-653/18 imposes a significant constraint upon tax authority practice. Even where authorities successfully demonstrate that no export occurred, they are not entitled to classify such supplies automatically as domestic transactions subject to the standard VAT rate.
In the Court’s analysis, where there exists neither a supply of goods effected within the territory of the country nor a transaction exempt under Article 146(1) of the VAT Directive, no taxable transaction exists. The consequence is denial of the right to deduct input VAT on acquisition of the goods in question.
B. Inconsistency as Grounds for Annulment
The Łódź court annulled the contested decision precisely on grounds of inconsistency in the tax authorities’ reasoning. The authorities simultaneously asserted an absence of evidence of export beyond EU territory while maintaining that the goods never left the country—positions that are mutually exclusive. The court directed the authority to determine unequivocally whether the goods in fact departed EU territory, indicating two possible resolutions consistent with CJEU jurisprudence.
Practical Implications for Commercial Operators
A. The Continuing Importance of Due Diligence
Notwithstanding the robust evidentiary position conferred by the IE-599 communication (now CC599C), commercial operators should maintain appropriate due diligence in relations with foreign counterparties. The CJEU observed that requiring an economic operator to act in good faith and to take all measures reasonably within its power to ensure that transactions do not result in participation in tax fraud is not inconsistent with EU law.
In practical terms, this obligation encompasses verification of counterparties, documentation of transaction execution, and heightened caution where circumstances raise questions regarding a trading partner’s probity.
B. Supplementary Documentation Supporting the IE-599 / CC599C
Although the IE-599 communication constitutes powerful evidence of export, operators should accumulate additional documentation confirming transaction execution: commercial agreements, counterparty correspondence, transport documents, and payment confirmations. Such documentation may prove essential in establishing the good faith of the taxable person should questions arise.
The IE-599 / CC599C: Synthesis and Conclusions
The IE-599 communication, as an official document, enjoys a robust presumption of authenticity. Tax authorities may neither disregard it nor substitute their own determinations without formally rebutting its evidentiary force. Findings of third-country tax administrations are insufficient to undermine this document’s probative value.
Simultaneously, CJEU jurisprudence imposes significant constraints upon administrative practice: non-identification of the purchaser does not automatically preclude export treatment, and successful challenge to export status does not permit automatic application of domestic VAT rates. The consequence may instead be classification of the transaction as falling outside the scope of VAT—albeit with corresponding denial of input tax deduction rights.
For commercial operators, the critical imperative remains maintenance of due diligence and accumulation of documentation confirming both the export itself and good faith in relations with foreign counterparties.
Technical Note: Distinctions Between IE-599 and CC599C Messages
Both customs messages serve identical purposes but operate within different temporal frameworks.
The IE-599 constituted the operative customs document until October 31, 2024, generated by the AES (Automatic Export System) / ECS (Export Control System). From that date forward, it has been entirely superseded by the CC599C within the new AES/ECS2 PLUS system.
Although both communications differ in nomenclature and originate from distinct information technology systems, they fulfill identical functions: primary confirmation of export (electronic documentation confirming departure of goods beyond EU customs territory); VAT documentation (the critical instrument enabling application of the zero-rate VAT treatment for goods exports); and customs documentation (confirmation of export procedure closure).
Both forms contain identical substantive information. The transition from IE-599 to CC599C derives from European harmonization of information technology systems. The new naming convention (Combined Customs Code) aims to unify communications across the entire European Union.
From an operational perspective, the change is primarily cosmetic. The CC599C does not modify the principles governing application of the zero-rate VAT treatment for exports.
-Legal Framework: Council Directive 2006/112/EC, arts. 131, 146(1)(a)–(b); Polish Act on Tax on Goods and Services, arts. 2(8), 41(4)–(6a); Tax Ordinance, art. 194.
Authorities Cited: Case C-653/18, Unitel sp. z o.o. v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie, ECLI:EU:C:2019:876 (CJEU, Oct. 17, 2019); Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź of June 12, 2025, Case No. I SA/Łd 165/25, LEX No. 3885553.
Founder and Managing Partner of Skarbiec Law Firm, recognized by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna as one of the best tax advisory firms in Poland (2023, 2024). Legal advisor with 19 years of experience, serving Forbes-listed entrepreneurs and innovative start-ups. One of the most frequently quoted experts on commercial and tax law in the Polish media, regularly publishing in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Author of the publication “AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto. Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator” and co-author of the award-winning book “Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy” (Security of a Modern Company). LinkedIn profile: 18 500 followers, 4 million views per year. Awards: 4-time winner of the European Medal, Golden Statuette of the Polish Business Leader, title of “International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.” He specializes in strategic legal consulting, tax planning, and crisis management for business.
