# C_2007211EN.01003601.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/36

---

Action brought on 25 June 2007 — DSV Road v Commission

(Case T-219/07)

(2007/C 211/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: DSV ROAD N.V. (represented by: A. Poelmans, A. Calewaert and R. de Wit, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside Decision C(2007) 1776 of the Commission of the European Communities of 24 April 2007 in relation to the application of the Kingdom of Belgium (file reference REC 05/02) determining that import duties in the amount of EUR 168 004,65 forming the subject-matter of the application of the Kingdom of Belgium of 12 August 2002 must be recovered and that there are no grounds for remission of those import duties; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside Decision C(2007) 1776 of the Commission of the European Communities of 24 April 2007 in relation to the application of the Kingdom of Belgium (file reference REC 05/02) determining that import duties in the amount of EUR 168 004,65 forming the subject-matter of the application of the Kingdom of Belgium of 12 August 2002 must be recovered and that there are no grounds for remission of those import duties;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant imported diskettes from Thailand. Those diskettes were covered by a preferential rule under the scheme of general tariff preferences on condition that their importation was covered by a form A certificate of origin issued by the competent Thai authorities in accordance with Article 80 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1).

1

On the occasion of each customs declaration the applicant submitted a form A issued by the Thai authorities, following which the Belgian authorities accorded preferential tariff treatment.

However, a number of the certificates issued by the Thai authorities were declared to be invalid, with the result that the goods concerned were not eligible for preferential tariff treatment when imported into the EU.

In the contested decision the Commission ruled that the resulting customs debt had to be the subject of post-clearance recovery.

The applicant first submits that the Commission should have ruled that the outstanding duties did not have to be the subject of post-clearance recovery, in accordance with Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2). The applicant submits that the issue of the form A certificates was attributable to a mistake on the part of the Thai authorities and that there is no indication whatsoever that the exporters incorrectly set out the facts. Moreover, the applicant contends, there was a mistake inasmuch as the Thai authorities knew, or ought to have known, that the goods in question were not eligible for preferential tariff treatment.

2

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission ought to have remitted the duties in accordance with Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the ground of special circumstances.

---

(1)  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 1993 L 253, p. 1).

1

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

2

---