# C_2007082EN.01001801.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/18

---

Appeal brought on 1 February 2007 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission of the European Communities

Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading

Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-38/07 P)

(2007/C 82/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading (represented by: H. de Bie, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04;

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 June 2004 (REM 19/2002), in which the Commission held that remission of import duties was not justified in that particular case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 June 2004 (REM 19/2002), in which the Commission held that remission of import duties was not justified in that particular case;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant challenges the judgment under appeal on the following grounds:

| | Breach of Article 239 of the Customs Code (1), in conjunction with Articles 899 to 909 inclusive of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) (‘the implementing regulation’) and inadequate reasoning of the Court's findings, or at least reasoning which cannot support those findings. |
| --- | --- |

Breach of Article 239 of the Customs Code (1), in conjunction with Articles 899 to 909 inclusive of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) (‘the implementing regulation’) and inadequate reasoning of the Court's findings, or at least reasoning which cannot support those findings.

1

2

| | The test relating to the nature of the mistake, the appellant's professional experience and the degree of care which it exercised ought, when considered together, to lead to the conclusion that remission was inevitable. The Court of First Instance incorrectly based its judgment on the supposition that the legislation applicable in this case in regard to the classification of so-called rice paper in the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the common customs tariff under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (3) was not complex. The appellant challenges the classification of unbaked rice paper as determined by the Court of First Instance, the Commission and the Netherlands customs authorities. The Court of First Instance, it submits, was wrong to conclude that Heuschen & Schrouff had extensive professional experience in the domain of imports and exports. In that connection the Court of First Instance incorrectly categorised Heuschen & Schrouff as being an experienced trader and thus as being well-versed in regard to import and export formalities. In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance placed excessively high requirements with regard to the duty of care resting on Heuschen & Schrouff, even if it were an experienced trader. In addition, the Court of First Instance wrongly identified Heuschen & Schrouff with the direct representative which it had engaged. |
| --- | --- |

The test relating to the nature of the mistake, the appellant's professional experience and the degree of care which it exercised ought, when considered together, to lead to the conclusion that remission was inevitable. The Court of First Instance incorrectly based its judgment on the supposition that the legislation applicable in this case in regard to the classification of so-called rice paper in the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the common customs tariff under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (3) was not complex. The appellant challenges the classification of unbaked rice paper as determined by the Court of First Instance, the Commission and the Netherlands customs authorities. The Court of First Instance, it submits, was wrong to conclude that Heuschen & Schrouff had extensive professional experience in the domain of imports and exports. In that connection the Court of First Instance incorrectly categorised Heuschen & Schrouff as being an experienced trader and thus as being well-versed in regard to import and export formalities. In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance placed excessively high requirements with regard to the duty of care resting on Heuschen & Schrouff, even if it were an experienced trader. In addition, the Court of First Instance wrongly identified Heuschen & Schrouff with the direct representative which it had engaged.

3

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).

3

---