CUSTOMS 2020 REPORT CLEN Action 2 Third proficiency test on sugars and sugar containing products Preparatory meeting

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Customs Policy, Legislation, Tariff Combined Nomenclature, Tariff Classification, TARIC and integration of trade measures CUSTOMS 2020 REPORT CLEN Action 2 Third proficiency test on sugars and sugar containing products Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Brussels, Belgium Minutes reported by CLEN TAS, under contract TAXUD/2016/DE/306. First draft submitted 30 May 2016; Revised version 17 June Approved by the representatives of DG TAXUD Unit A4, the test coordinator and the meeting participants; To be approved by the Head of DG TAXUD Unit A4.

2 AGENDA 1/ Welcome and adoption of the agenda 2/ Results and conclusions of both previous proficiency tests ( and ) and presentation of the suggestions received with the 2015 CLEN survey of future activities 3/ Information on the foreseen evolution of the legislation resulting from the end of sugar market quotas scheduled in 2017; in particular the possible amendments of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 as well as Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21. 4/ Discussion and definition of the proficiency test: agreement on the objectives of the test, samples suggestions, choice of parameters, choice of methods, recommendations, call for participation, test design and tentative time schedule 5/ Allotment of tasks for the proficiency test organisation 6/ Conclusion of the meeting 7/ Any other questions Annexes Annex I. Annex II. List of participants TAXUD/ /2016-EN: Possible amendment of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 as well as Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21 CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 2

3 I. Welcome and adoption of the agenda Meeting background During the 18 th CLEN Plenary Meeting in February 2016, it was confirmed that a third CLEN proficiency test on sugars and sugar containing products should be organised. The aim of this proficiency test is to provide and compare the analytical results obtained from many Customs Laboratories for the analyses of sugar in various products as well as the degree of polarisation of sugars. The proficiency test will concentrate on parameters and products for which there are no commercial proficiency tests available. It will also take into account the evolution of the legislation resulting from the end of sugar market quotas scheduled in This meeting will aim at defining the proficiency test: choice of matrices and analytical methods, number of replicates, presentation of the results, etc. This meeting initially scheduled on 30 March 2016, was cancelled on 24 March 2016 following the terrorist attacks, because of the orange alert state in the European Commission which did not allow for meetings with external participants to take place. A group was established (from Member States Customs Laboratories) by the coordinator of the test and the CLEN Action 2 Leader for the definition of the test. Six delegates and two representatives of DG TAXUD Unit A4 met on 25 May 2016 in Brussels. One additional delegate participated by phone. The list of participants is provided in Annex I. Opening of the meeting The chairwoman, representative of DG TAXUD, opened the meeting, welcomed the participants and proposed to start by the third point of the agenda which was agreed by the participants. Nevertheless, the meeting minutes are reported as defined in the agenda. II. Results and conclusions of previous proficiency test; suggestions from the 2015 CLEN survey of future activities The Chairwoman and the test coordinator presented the main conclusions of the last proficiency test ( ) and the suggestions received within the 2015 CLEN survey of future activities. CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 3

4 A. Results & conclusions of the previous proficiency test As a conclusion of the last proficiency test on sugars, it was recommended: 1) to amend method 10 of Directive 79/796/EEC by replacing the lead acetate solution by Carrez I and II solutions, 2) to modify Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature: in the short term, modification of Additional Note 2(a) by introducing HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) instead of refractometry for sugar analysis; in the long-term, new structure for Chapter 20 would be needed. 3) to clarify Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 and 952/2006 regarding the quantities of purity of syrups, content in sucrose, including other sugars expressed as sucrose etc., 4) to propose the replacement of the Lane & Eynon method (Regulation (EC) No 951/2006) by HPLC and 5) to republish the revoked Regulation (EEC) No 558/93. The chairwoman confirmed that the proposed amendment n 1 of the Directive 79/796/EEC has been discussed and approved at the Customs Code Committee (CCC) meeting but it has not been published yet. DG TAXUD is not directly responsible for the amendment of the abovementioned Directive, anyhow the concerned DG will be consulted again. In the 2 nd CLEN test on sugars, in the case one sample, the determination of the total amount of sugar expressed in sucrose by the Lane & Eynon method gave, for some laboratories, very low results because these laboratories had not followed the inversion step before applying the Lane & Eynon method. Consequently it is important in this proficiency test to state clearly that the Lane & Eynon method will be applied after the inversion according to Clerget-Herzfeld. B. Suggestions The coordinator presented the suggestions received during the 2015 CLEN survey on future activities. The proposed samples were: Similar to previous tests, raw sugar, sugar sample with purity 99,5%, sugar mixture, white and brown sugar, flavoured sugars, syrups (e.g. agave nectar, syrups with high fructose content), molasses, maltodextrin, sugar of Additional Note 2 as reference sample for laboratories, juice for application of Brix and classification criteria of Chapter 20 of Combined Nomenclature (CN), dairy products and processed products. Moreover the coordinator explained that the proficiency test should help defining the amendment of Additional notes (AN) 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 and of Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21 required as Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 will be repealed as of 30 September Consequently, the test should focus on samples of Chapters 17 and 21. CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 4

5 III. Information on the foreseen evolution of the legislation DG TAXUD presented the amendment proposal of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 and of Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21 required as Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 will be repealed as of 30 September The version presented during this meeting was the result of deep discussions with some Customs delegates before the meeting. The document was initially planned to be presented to the Customs Code Committee (CCC) in June During the meeting it was agreed that the proposal of amendment will be finalised after this proficiency test. The version of the proposal, corrected taking into account this meeting discussion, is in annex II. General overview One delegate (EL) stated that the term sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose from the Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 should not be changed. Consequently, sugar content should be replaced by sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose in the amendment proposal. Moreover, HPLC has to be cited as a technique not as a method. The Action 2 Leader (FR) reminded that the aim of this amendment is to avoid changing the duty; consequently, the chosen methods should produce similar results. So the proficiency test has to be performed before proposing the amendment to CCC. Article 1, point 4 of the proposed version in annex II In the first draft of the document, distributed to the participants in March two formulas were proposed in order to calculate the sugar content depending on the relative proportion of fructose and glucose. When the glucose content is less than the fructose content, the formula was: S + 0,95 (F + G) Eq. 1 otherwise if the glucose content is not less than the fructose content, the formula was: S (2F) Eq. 2 where S is the sucrose content, F the fructose content, G the glucose content ; all of them determined by HPLC. This set of formulas comprise the quantity sucrose/invert sugar/isoglucose related to the Meursing table and to Regulation (EC) No 900/2008. Moreover, in the proposal of amendment of the AN 2 of Chapter 20 the Meursing approach was initially proposed (vote of the majority of the CLEN after the 2 nd proficiency test). In the new version of the document, only the Eq. 1 is used. Some delegates (EL, PT) wondered why only one formula was in this version of the document as well as in AN 2 of Chapter 20 as at first the above mentioned set of formulas was proposed. The DG TAXUD representative explained that the CCC preferred to use one formula (Eq. 1). CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 5

6 Regarding the Lane & Eynon method, which is old-fashioned and difficult to use, a participant (EL) explained that the main problem is that, contrary to HPLC, it is not selective. Consequently, different results could be obtained depending on the sugar and non - sugar profile of the product. However, for sucrose-based products ( , , ) the results would be similar. To evaluate if both formulas have to be kept, a delegate (NL) will send results based on the two calculations to compare the results. He reminded that those formulas are only used for products with sugar over 85% otherwise dry matter is used. A delegate (EL) reminded the necessity to multiply the dry matter result by a conversion factor of 1.9 in the case of inulin syrup (codes and ) because according to Regulation (EC) 951/2006 the sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose, is based on the dry matter content and then the result is multiplied by 1.9 in order to be converted into a sucrose equivalent. This multiplication will prevent from a change in the duty (Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, annex II). A participant (NL) reminded that this coefficient refers to free fructose, however in the dry matter content other sugars are included as well (oligo- and polysaccharides). Consequently, it is possible to get sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose over 100 %. The first delegate reminded that the above mentioned result (sucrose equivalent) is a theoretical value. Article 2, point 4 of the proposed version in annex II Concerning code HPLC could be proposed, however, a participant (EL) explained that products could contain for example oligosaccharides or caramelisation products etc, and consequently different results would be obtained between sugar content by HPLC and dry matter content. Therefore, the choice of dry matter would ensure, irrespective of the composition of the product, that the duty would not decrease. Nevertheless, to allow for the possibility of using HPLC, she proposed to add exceptions. However, even if some of those products are sucrose-based, it is not easy to include exceptions as stated by another delegate (NL). Consequently, the dry matter determination is given in the current amendment proposal. General conclusion The DG TAXUD representative explained that the amendment has to be accepted by October He will wait for the conclusions of the second discussion meeting to submit the amendment to the CCC (at the latest in February 2017). The chairwoman declared that the conclusions of the proficiency test should be available by then. IV. Discussion and definition of the proficiency test A. Objectives of the test The participants unanimously agreed on the test s main objectives: - Help defining the amendment of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 and of Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21 because of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 expiration in 2017, specifically as regards the methods. - Compare the results of Lane & Eynon method, dry matter according to method 2 of Directive 79/796/EEC, refractometry and HPLC. This will help to replace the Lane & Eynon CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 6

7 method by the method or technique producing the closest results and propose a method for the determination of the dry matter. B. Samples suggestions, parameters and methods 1. Discussion about samples Inulin syrup It was proposed to have a sample of inulin syrup with a relatively low fructose content (CN code , 10 fructose content 50%w/w) to compare results of HPLC and dry matter. Molasses Molasses (1703) are interesting because some difficulties may occur during the measurement of the degree of polarisation. The coordinator explained that molasses can be under different headings and that measured parameters (as dry matter) may not help classification. Finally it was decided that molasses could be the subject of another proficiency test with samples as caramelised sugar, solid molasses etc It would be an opportunity for determining and publishing their chemical characteristics. Isoglucose syrup A delegate (NL) explained that according to the Market Access Database there is almost no import regarding this name (example code ). Such product may be declared under another code with a lower duty and it is not easy to determine if it is isoglucose or not. A delegate (NL) explained that they have an HPLC which makes it possible to separate oligosaccharides to define the nature of the syrup. High Fructose Corn Syrup was cited as an example of isoglucose syrup which could be used as a sample for this proficiency test. It was also suggested to make an inquiry among the Member States to verify if they have analysed in the past samples with such characteristics Isoglucose syrup 1 with a relatively low fructose content (e.g. products of , where the fructose content is as low as possible) was finally proposed as a sample. Aromatised syrup An aromatised syrup was proposed in the 2015 CLEN Survey on future activities. During the meeting, it was suggested to analyse 2 aromatised syrups (code ) one above and one under 85% sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose. The Lane & Eynon method has to be used only for products with a sucrose content 85% (Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 article 42). However, the aim of these samples is to have aromatised syrups without knowing whether their sucrose content is higher or lower than 85%. Therefore, laboratories will perform first the Lane & Eynon method on both samples and will choose the appropriate method for their classification. As it may not be possible to find an aromatised syrup 85% sucrose content, at least a product <85% sucrose content will be provided. 1 According to the Additional Note to Chapter 17, the fructose content should be at least 10% on dry weight basis. 2 Products of are the less sucrose-based products of the isoglucose category (10% fructose content (in the dry state)<20%w/w). CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 7

8 Raw sugar and semi-white sugar A delegate (IT) explained that they are facing difficulties with products with polarimetric results indicating white sugar (>99.5%) while their colour is not white. He asked the participants about their opinion on this matter and the interest of having a sample of that type in this proficiency test. A participant (FR) reminded that a method to detect colouring agent was proposed in the first proficiency test. When colouring agent or flavoured matter is added in the sugar, the code is , otherwise it is subheading A semi-white sugar was suggested to evaluate the results of the method of determination of the colour type for sugars with >99.5% by weight of sugar but with a slight colour. A raw sugar around 99.3% by weight of sucrose was also suggested as a sample for this test. Other samples proposed Other proposed samples were agave syrup and a prebiotic (galactose-oligosaccharides, GOS) but, in the end, they were not included. 2. Discussion on methods Lane & Eynon method A delegate (IT) suggested asking laboratories about their experience regarding the Lane & Eynon method (if they use a validated/accredited method or not) because the quality of the results will affect the final proposal of method. It was reminded that the Lane & Eynon method has to be performed after inversion by Clerget- Herzfeld method and that the result has to be multiplied by 0.95 in order to be converted into sucrose. Colour type The colour type is based on Braunschweig (Brunswick) method (method 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1265/69) and is a comparison between the colour of the sample and those of seven reference samples to classify sugar as white or semi-white. It is a quick method, but not easy because results may depend on light and on the person. Proposing this method will help evaluating how many laboratories use it and to compare their results. These results could be used to validate the method in some laboratories. This parameter will not be mandatory. Dry matter It was reminded that dry matter results, in the case of inulin syrup (codes and ), have to be multiplied by a conversion factor of 1.9 because inulin syrup is a fructose based product and this allow giving the result in sucrose equivalent. CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 8

9 3. Selected samples, parameters and methods Analysis for all the parameters will be requested in duplicate (under repeatability conditions). The colour type test will not be mandatory. For all the samples the Combined Nomenclature code has to be indicated. The analytical methods to be used for each parameter are detailed in part VI. During the sample sourcing, there is a priori no need to control the product characteristics. The label will be the evidence except in case of doubt or for raw sugar around 99.3 % by weight of sucrose. CLEN-TAS will evaluate the needs with the coordinator. The homogeneity control will be performed under the assistance contract; homogeneity control for the Brix measurement could be performed by the Dutch Laboratory. Sample Example Quantity Raw sugar (<99.5%, around 99.3% by weight of sucrose) Semi-white sugar (over 99.5% by weight of sucrose) Isoglucose syrup with a relatively low fructose content (e.g. products of , where the fructose content is as low as possible) Demerara sugar 1kg Needed information Label (if commercial sample) and if possible information on the production process Parameters (methods) Dry matter (method 1, Annex II, Directive 79/796/EEC) Degree of polarisation (Method 10, Annex II, Directive 79/796/EEC), using Carrez I-II instead of lead acetate Degree of polarisation in the dry state (Method 10, Annex II, Directive 79/796/EEC) 150g Colour type, number of points and characterisation (white or semi-white sugar) Braunschweig method (method 2, Reg. (EEC) No 1265/69) 1 kg ideally, 500g minimum Declaration that syrup is produced from starch Sugar content HPLC (fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose) individual sugars sum of the 4 sugars calculation using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 Dry matter Method 2, Directive 79/796/EEC Brix Homogeneity control Karl-Fisher moisture content - Brix CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 9

10 Inulin syrup containing from 10 to 50% of fructose in free form or as sucrose 2 Flavoured syrups sucrose content, including other sugars expressed as sucrose 85% (if possible to find) <85% Frutalose (Sensus) (as Fructalose L85) 1 kg ideally, 500g minimum 1 kg ideally, 500g minimum (Regulation (EU) No 974/2014) Sugar content HPLC (fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose) individual sugars sum of the 4 sugars calculation using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 Dry matter (Method 2, Directive 79/796/EEC) report result as it is and additionally after multiplying it by 1.9 (sucrose equivalent of Reg. (EC) No 951/2006) (2 fields on the results sheet) Brix (Regulation (EU) No 974/2014) Content of reducing sugars expressed as sucrose (multiplication by 0.95) (after inversion; Lane & Eynon method) Sugar content HPLC (fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose) individual sugars sum of the 4 sugars calculation using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 Dry matter (Method 2, Directive 79/796/EEC) Brix (Regulation (EU) No 974/2014) Brix Brix CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 10

11 C. Recommendations It should be clearly stated on the results sheets that: The Lane & Eynon method should be done after inversion according to Clerget-Herzfeld. Questions have to be asked on the results sheets: For Lane & Eynon method: is the lab used to performing (accurately and precisely) the Lane & Eynon method? Is the method validated or accredited? For the syrups: the labs will be asked to justify their classification. D. Expression of the results The participants agreed on the number of analyses (replicates) and the expression of the results. The laboratories registering in the test should perform all the analyses, except for the Colour type parameter which will not be mandatory. Concerning the results and results sheets: CLEN TAS will draft and provide the results sheets. The sheets will be built as in the case of the last proficiency test with descriptions of methods, comments and 2 replicates per sample. E. Call for participation A call for participation in the proficiency test will be drafted (by CLEN TAS) in June, with a short description of the proficiency test as defined during this preparatory meeting. The draft call will be validated by the coordinator before being launched in the CLEN electronic community. F. Tentative time schedule The following ideal time schedule was defined: June Call for participation (one month) June-July Product sourcing August Production of the samples and homogeneity controls Mid-September Sending of the samples Two months will be allocated for the laboratory analyses Mid-November Collect of results Mid-December 1 st draft report sent to the participants End January Discussion meeting in Lisbon (at the latest) February Second draft report March Validation process to issue the Final report CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 11

12 V. Allotment of the tasks The Netherlands will send data to compare the results of sugar content calculation depending on the used formula (Eq. 1 or Eq. 2). Most of the tasks required for the test will be performed by the contractor ( CLEN TAS, Bipea & Eurofins): draft call, draft results sheets, sourcing of products, purchasing of products, production of samples, sending of samples, collecting results, data treatment/statistics, drafting the test report (first draft and second draft versions), etc. The coordinator will follow-up the test, check and validate the documents, lead the discussion meeting and draft the conclusions of the test. DG TAXUD will supervise and validate the work. VI. Summary and conclusion of the meeting In summary, the main characteristics of the proficiency test, as defined by the preparatory group, are: Titles of the test Short title: Proficiency test on sugars Full title: 3 rd CLEN proficiency test on sugars and sugar containing products Objectives/test parts A/ The proficiency test will focus on products of chapters 17 and 21 to help modifying the amendment of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 as well as Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21. B/ This proficiency test will compare the results of the Lane & Eynon method, dry matter according to method 2 of Directive 79/796/EEC, refractometry according to the method of Regulation (EU) 974/2014 and HPLC (this will help to replace the Lane & Eynon method by the method or technique producing the closest results and propose a method for the determination of the dry matter). Schedule envisaged June 2016: call for participation September 2016: samples sending November 2016: submission of results December 2016: 1 st draft report January 2017: discussion meeting March 2017: approval of the Final report Samples/Parameters/Methods/Results A recapitulative table is provided next page Conclusion of the meeting After a brief overview of the test defined (as reported in the above summary), the chairwoman and the coordinator thanked the participants for their contributions and closed this preparatory meeting. CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 12

13 Dry matter Samples/Parameters/Methods/Results Parameters Specifications Raw sugar 99.3% sugar content Semiwhite sugar > 99.5% sugar content with slight colour Isoglucose syrup Relatively Low fructose content (e.g ) Samples Inulin syrup 10 to 50% of fructose in free form or as sucrose ( ) Flavoured syrups 85% sucrose content according to Art. 42 of Reg. (EC) 951/2006 ( ) Quantity 1kg 150g 1kg preferably, minimum 500g Degree of polarisation Degree of polarisation in the dry state Colour type / Points/Characterisation of the sugar as white or semi-white Content of reducing sugars (expressed as sucrose) Fructose, Glucose, Sucrose and Maltose X X X X not mandatory Flavoured syrups <85% sucrose content according to Art. 42 of Reg. (EC) 951/2006 ( ) X X X X X X Methods Method 1, Annex II, Directive 79/796/EEC Method 10, Annex II, Directive 79/796/EEC Calculation based on the two preceding measurements Braunschweig method (method 2, Regulation (EEC) 1265/69) Lane & Eynon method after inversion by Clerget-Herzfeld (and x0.95 to express in sucrose) HPLC Amount of individual sugars Sum of the 4 sugars calculation using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 Dry matter X X 3 X X Method 2, Directive 79/796/EEC Brix X X X X Refractometry, Regulation (EU) 974/2014 Brix 2 Classification (CN code) X X X X X X digits Unit % w/w % w/w % w/w - % w/w % w/w % w/w Decimal places for colour type In the reply form, both the result and the result multiplied by 1.9 (sucrose equivalent of Reg. (EC) No 951/2006) are to be reported. CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Page 13

14 Annex I - List of participants European Commission Ms Simona ANDRONI Mr Norman BARNER Member states Mr Christoff VAN MOORLEGHEM Ms Nadine VARRA Mr Aniello D ORSI Ms Alexandra KELAIDOPOULOU Mr Miguel SANTOS Ms Manuela COSTA Mr Robert HOUBEN Contractor Mr Eric ZIEGLER Ms Elodie DUBIN Excused Mr Michael GERSTER EC-TAXUD A4 EC-TAXUD A4 Belgium France Action Leader Italy Greece Portugal Portugal - Coordinator The Netherlands phone meeting BIPEA CLEN TAS Eurofins CLEN TAS Germany Annex II - TAXUD/ /2016-EN: Possible amendment of Additional notes 4 and 5 to Chapter 17 as well as Additional notes 3 and 4 to Chapter 21 Annex II is provided as a separate electronic document CLEN 3 rd Test Sugars Preparatory meeting 25 May 2016 Annexes