Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:679
Date: 2025-09-02
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Translation C-827/24 - 1 
Case C-827/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
13 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 September 2024 
Appellants: 
Autoritatea Vamală Română prin Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca 
Respondents: 
Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj 
Direct Line Inox Impex SRL 
Serviciul Soluționare Contestații 
  
[…] 
CURTEA DE APEL CLUJ 
SECȚIA A III-A CONTENCIOS ADMINISTRATIV ȘI FISCAL (COURT 
OF APPEAL, CLUJ, ROMANIA, THIRD DIVISION FOR 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TAX MATTERS) 
[…] 
Public hearing of 30 September 2024 
[…] 
The referring court has examined the appeal lodged by the appellant Direcția 
Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca (Regional Directorate-
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 9. 2024 – CASE C-827/24 
 
2  
General for Public Finances, Cluj-Napoca, Romania) and the appeal lodged by the 
appellant Autoritatea Vamală Română prin Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj 
(Romanian Customs Authority, through the Regional Customs Directorate, Cluj, 
Romania) against Civil Judgment No 391/2024 delivered on 15 February 2024 by 
the Tribunalul Cluj (Regional Court, Cluj, Romania) in Case No 2915/117/2020, 
against the respondents Direct Line Inox Impex SRL, the Direcția Regională 
Vamală Cluj (Regional Customs Directorate, Cluj, Romania) and the Serviciul 
Soluționare Contestații (Department for the Settlement of Complaints, Romania), 
regarding complaints brought against administrative tax acts, namely Decision 
No 21 of 27 January 2020 and Decision No CJR DRV 10273/SSCV/CM/LO of 
30 September 2019. 
[…] [procedural aspects] 
The referring court questions the reason for restoring the case to the list, namely 
the need to make a reference to [the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the 
CJEU’)] for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 13(1) of 
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] and Article 60(2) of [Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the 
Union Customs Code (‘the Union Customs Code’)], namely whether it is possible, 
with regard to the same modification to a product in a particular country, to 
consider that that modification constitutes a substantial modification such that 
Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is not applicable, but at the same time 
that it does not constitute a last, substantial processing or working within the 
meaning of Article 60(2) of the Union Customs Code. 
The representative of the Regional Directorate for Public Finances, Cluj-Napoca, 
takes the view that there is no need to refer the matter to the CJEU […], given that 
[Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the 
Community Customs Code (‘the CCC’)] is not applicable to the anti-dumping 
duties at issue in the present case. 
The representative of Direct Line Inox Impex SRL considers it useful to refer a 
question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, because there have been significant 
modifications made to the goods imported from [the People’s Republic of China 
(‘China’)]; modifications were made in India and then the products [were] brought 
into the European Union. As the non-preferential origin of those goods is being 
analysed, the representative considers that anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed 
as a penalty when substantial modifications have been made to goods, even if a 
certificate of non-preferential origin which does not fulfil all the criteria of the 
CCC may be involved. 
[…] 
THE REFERRING COURT 
DIRECT LINE INOX IMPEX 
 
3 
I. Setting out the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings 
and the relevant facts 
1 By the action which is the subject matter of the present case, Direct Line Inox 
Impex SRL sought, against the Regional Directorate-General for Public Finances, 
Cluj-Napoca, the Regional Customs Directorate, Cluj, and the Department for the 
Settlement of Complaints, annulment of Decision No CJR 
DRV 10273/SSCV/CM/LO of 30 September 2019 for regularisation of the 
situation regarding the additional obligations established by customs control. 
2 In fact, by that decision, Direct Line Inox Impex SRL was ordered to pay anti-
dumping duty of 315 433.23 Romanian lei (RON) and VAT of RON 226 796, 
together with incidental VAT. 
3 The customs authorities found that, with Customs Declaration 
MRN19ROCT190010060150 of 5 February 2019, that company had released into 
free circulation a quantity of cold-drawn seamless stainless steel pipes. The 
consignor and the seller of the goods was Maxim Tubes Company Ltd [(‘Maxim 
Tubes’)] and the origin of the goods was entered in the customs declaration on the 
basis of Certificate of Non-preferential Origin No 24860 of 5 January 2019, issued 
by the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. 
4 That transaction took place in a context in which the like Chinese products were 
subject to anti-dumping duties when imported into the European Union; the duties 
applicable under the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) were 0% and the anti-
dumping duties were 71.9%. 
5 According to Report OCM(2019)15079 of [the European Anti-Fraud Office 
(OLAF)] of 5 July 2019 [(‘Report OCM(2019)15079’)], which investigated three 
Indian companies, including Maxim Tubes, it was found that all seamless stainless 
steel pipes exported by that company originated in China, having been initially 
brought from China and subsequently re-exported to the Union. Even if 
processing took place in India, it was not substantial and, in any event, did not 
fulfil the criteria for conferring Indian origin. 
6 The investigating authorities considered that the manufacturing processes that 
took place at Maxim Tubes were not such as to confirm the Indian origin of the 
pipes, as long as they were still made from seamless stainless steel pipes of the 
same heading of SA-7304 imported from China. It was held that, as regards 
stainless steel tubes and pipes, the rules set out in Annex 22-01 to [Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation 
(EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards 
detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code] and the 
rules included in the list rules published on the website of [the Directorate-General 
for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD)] are the same. In the case of 
subheading 7304 41 – pipes of circular cross-section, cold-drawn or cold-rolled 
(cold-reduced) for uses other than those mentioned above – the rule is a change of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 9. 2024 – CASE C-827/24 
 
4  
tariff heading or manufacture from hollow profiles classified in subheading 7304 
49; the term ‘hollow profiles’ is defined in the Harmonised System Explanatory 
Rules, a document issued by the World Trade Organization (WTO), as meaning 
hollow products which do not have inner and outer surfaces of the same shape; 
The hollow profiles may have different shapes, but the external and internal shape 
should be different; the dimensions of the imported tubes and pipes indicate that 
the object of the imports were pipes of circular cross-section and not hollow 
profiles; this means that the processing carried out by Maxim Tubes does not 
comply with the rules of origin as laid down in Annex 22-01 to [Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446] and in the list rules published on the DG TAXUD 
website. It was concluded that the pipes covered by Customs Declaration 
MRN19ROCT190010060150 of 5 February 2019, declared in customs as 
originating in India, in reality originated in China and therefore anti-dumping 
duties are due. 
7 Direct Line Inox Impex SRL challenged the decision for regularisation of the 
situation regarding the additional obligations established by customs control, as 
has been stated in paragraph 1. 
8 By Civil Judgment No 391/2024, delivered by [the Tribunanul Cluj (Regional 
Court, Cluj) (‘the Tribunalul’)] in Case No 2915/117/2020, that company’s action 
was admitted at first instance. In order to reach that decision, that court held, in 
essence, that (i) the tax authority had incorrectly given full effect to the aspects set 
out in the OLAF report – even though these are of a general nature – without 
carrying out its own verification, which would actually and specifically establish 
the factual situation in which the applicant – now the appellant – finds itself, (ii) it 
cannot be assumed that all the pipes imported by Maxim Tubes and subsequently 
exported to Europe – including Romania – would not have been processed by it in 
any way, and (iii) according to the conclusions of [Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2017/2093 of 15 November 2017 terminating the investigation 
concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by 
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 on imports of certain 
seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of 
China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India 
or not, and terminating the registration of such imports imposed by Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/272 (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2017/2093’)], cold processing represents a substantial transformation of the 
product and there is due cause and economic justification, other than the 
avoidance of the duty, for any change in the pattern of trade between China, India 
and the Union. 
9 The [Romanian Customs Authority, through the Regional Customs Directorate, 
Cluj, and the Regional Directorate-General for Public Finances, Cluj-Napoca, 
have brought appeals] against Civil Judgment [No 391/2024] of [the Tribunalul]. 
In the course of the appeal proceedings, the referring court raised the question of 
how to interpret the European Union law applicable in the present case and invited 
DIRECT LINE INOX IMPEX 
 
5 
the parties to consider the need to make a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary 
ruling. 
II. Content of the national provisions applicable in the case 
10 There are no national provisions relevant to the merits of the present case, as the 
provisions of European Union law in respect of which interpretation is sought are 
directly applicable. 
III. Grounds forming the basis of the reference for a preliminary ruling 
11 The referring court holds that in the present case, there is, at least ostensibly, a 
contradiction between [Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2093] and [Report 
OCM(2019)15079]. 
12 Thus, by [Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2093] it was established, by 
reference to the Indian company Maxim Tubes Company Private Limited, that, 
although that company almost exclusively purchased hot-formed tubes in China 
and performed cold-forming in India, the latter operation substantially 
transformed the product and irreversibly modified its essential characteristics. 
13 On the other hand, by [Report OCM(2019)15079], which also covered the Indian 
company Maxim Tubes Company Private Limited, it was established that that 
company imports seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes from China and then 
exports them to the Union, after insufficient processing to obtain Indian origin, for 
the purpose of evading the applicable anti-dumping duties. With regard to this 
processing, namely cold-drawing, it was held that it did not constitute a substantial 
transformation. 
14 It is true that [Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2093] was issued in the 
context of an investigation into possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures 
for the purpose of the application of Article 13(1) of 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], 
while [Report OCM(2019)15079] does not relate to such a procedure, but the 
question arises as to whether it is possible, with regard to the same modification to 
a product in a particular country, to consider that that modification constitutes a 
substantial modification such that Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is 
not applicable, but at the same time that it does not constitute a last, substantial 
processing or working within the meaning of Article 60(2) of the Union Customs 
Code. 
15 The referring court emphasises that what the CJEU is being asked to do by the 
present reference for a preliminary ruling is not to interpret the evidence adduced 
in the case – namely [Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2093] and [Report 
OCM(2019)15079] – to determine which of them is to be given precedence, but to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 9. 2024 – CASE C-827/24 
 
6  
clarify to what extent, if the referring court concludes that they establish the same 
factual situation, it can be held that that situation is not covered by Article 13(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, whereas the goods imported into the European Union 
cannot be regarded as originating in India within the meaning of Article 60(2) of 
the Union Customs Code. 
IV. Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
16 In the light of the foregoing, the referring court considers that it is necessary to 
[refer the matter] to the CJEU […] [text of the reference for a preliminary ruling 
reproduced in the operative part] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW 
HEREBY ORDERS 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 
How should Article 13(1) of 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] and Article 60(2) of 
[Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘the Union Customs 
Code’)] be interpreted, that is to say, is it possible, with regard to the same 
modification to a product in a particular country, to consider that that 
modification constitutes a substantial modification such that Article 13(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is not applicable, but at the same time that it does not 
constitute a last, substantial processing or working within the meaning of 
Article 60(2) of the Union Customs Code? 
[…] [procedure, signatures]