# C_2009006EN.01000602.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV

(Case C-375/07) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of a classification regulation - Interpretation of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 - Articles 220 and 239 of the Customs Code - Articles 871 and 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water - Tariff classification - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Procedure for remission - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer)

(2009/C 6/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13), of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 212, p. 18), and of Article 871(1) 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 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water — Tariff classification under heading 1905 of the CN — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties — Error on the part of the customs authorities which could not ‘reasonably have been detected by the person liable for payment’ — Mandatory reference to the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Sheets prepared from rice flour, salt and water which are then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment, are covered by subheading 1905 90 20 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1624/97 of 13 August 1997. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sheets prepared from rice flour, salt and water which are then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment, are covered by subheading 1905 90 20 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1624/97 of 13 August 1997.

| 2. | Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.

| 3. | Where an application for remission of import duties has been submitted to the Commission of the European Communities by a Member State under Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and the Commission has already adopted a decision containing assessments of fact and law in a particular case concerning import transactions, such assessments bind all the authorities of the Member State to which that decision was addressed, in accordance with Article 249 EC, including the courts which have to assess that case under Article 220 of that regulation.
  If the importer has, within the period prescribed in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, brought an action for annulment of a decision of the Commission of the European Communities in respect of an application for remission of import duties pursuant to Article 239 of that regulation, it is for the national court to decide whether to stay the proceedings until a definitive decision has been given in the action for annulment or to refer itself a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling as to validity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where an application for remission of import duties has been submitted to the Commission of the European Communities by a Member State under Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and the Commission has already adopted a decision containing assessments of fact and law in a particular case concerning import transactions, such assessments bind all the authorities of the Member State to which that decision was addressed, in accordance with Article 249 EC, including the courts which have to assess that case under Article 220 of that regulation.

If the importer has, within the period prescribed in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, brought an action for annulment of a decision of the Commission of the European Communities in respect of an application for remission of import duties pursuant to Article 239 of that regulation, it is for the national court to decide whether to stay the proceedings until a definitive decision has been given in the action for annulment or to refer itself a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling as to validity.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---