# C_2014421EN.01000601.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus, Estonia) — AS Baltic Agro v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-3/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - First independent customer in the European Union - Acquisition of ammonium nitrate fertiliser through another company - Release of the goods - Application for invalidation of the customs declaration - Decision 2008/577/EC - Customs Code - Articles 66 and 220 - Error - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 251 - Post-release verification))

2014/C 421/08

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Baltic Agro

Applicant:

Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a Member State, which purchased ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, through another company also established in a Member State, with a view to importing it into the Union, may not be considered to be the first independent customer in the Union, within the meaning of that provision, and may not therefore be eligible for the exemption from definitive anti-dumping duty laid down by that regulation in respect of the ammonium nitrate. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, must be interpreted as meaning that a company established in a Member State, which purchased ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, through another company also established in a Member State, with a view to importing it into the Union, may not be considered to be the first independent customer in the Union, within the meaning of that provision, and may not therefore be eligible for the exemption from definitive anti-dumping duty laid down by that regulation in respect of the ammonium nitrate.

| 2) | Articles 66 and 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006, of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority from making a subsequent entry in the accounts of anti-dumping duty when, as in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the requests to invalidate the customs declarations were brought on the ground that the entry for the consignee was incorrect and that the authority had accepted those declarations or put in hand a verification exercise after receiving those requests. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Articles 66 and 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006, of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority from making a subsequent entry in the accounts of anti-dumping duty when, as in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the requests to invalidate the customs declarations were brought on the ground that the entry for the consignee was incorrect and that the authority had accepted those declarations or put in hand a verification exercise after receiving those requests.

| 3) | Article 66 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 251 of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009, of 16 April 2009 are compatible with the fundamental right to equality before the law affirmed in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in circumstances where, in the context of the common customs tariff, referred to in Articles 28 TFEU and 31 TFEU, the aforementioned provisions of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 312/2009, do not permit the invalidation, on request, of an incorrect customs declaration and thus the grant of the benefit of the exemption from anti-dumping duty to the consignee that the latter could have claimed, if the error had not been made. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Article 66 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and Article 251 of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 312/2009, of 16 April 2009 are compatible with the fundamental right to equality before the law affirmed in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in circumstances where, in the context of the common customs tariff, referred to in Articles 28 TFEU and 31 TFEU, the aforementioned provisions of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, and of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 312/2009, do not permit the invalidation, on request, of an incorrect customs declaration and thus the grant of the benefit of the exemption from anti-dumping duty to the consignee that the latter could have claimed, if the error had not been made.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---