# C_2017038EN.01001301.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2016 — C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-612/16)

(2017/C 038/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a statute of limitations apply to the collection of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 (1) of 18 August 2016 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (2) of 13 September 2016 (together referred to as ‘Contested Regulations’'), and, if so, on the basis of which legal provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a statute of limitations apply to the collection of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 (1) of 18 August 2016 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (2) of 13 September 2016 (together referred to as ‘Contested Regulations’'), and, if so, on the basis of which legal provision?

1

2

| 2. | Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they lack a valid legal basis, and as such violate Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they lack a valid legal basis, and as such violate Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU?

| 3. | Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International?

| 4. | Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (3) or the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity) by imposing an anti-dumping duty on import of certain leather footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) 1472/2006 (4) and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009 (5)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (3) or the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity) by imposing an anti-dumping duty on import of certain leather footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) 1472/2006 (4) and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009 (5)?

3

4

5

| 5. | Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by re-imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the Contested Regulations invalid because they violate Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by re-imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment?

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 OJ L 225, p. 52

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 OJ L 245, p. 16

2

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union OJ L 176, p. 21

3

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam OJ L 275, p. 1

4

(5)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 OJ L 352, p. 1

5

---