Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:363
Date: 2026-04-30
Language of the case: Hungarian

Translation C-115/25 – 1 
Case C-115/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
3 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
21 January 2025 
Applicant: 
Stappert Magyarország Kft. 
Defendant: 
Nemzeti Adó-és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága 
 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) 
[…] 
In the administrative proceedings relating to customs matters brought by Stappert 
Magyarország Kft. ([…] Budapest […]), the applicant, against the Nemzeti Adó- 
és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals Directorate of the National 
Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary) ([…] Budapest […]), the defendant, 
Budapest High Court makes the following 
ORDER 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the referring court […] refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Must the term ‘relevant’, used in Article 1(6) of Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard 
measures against imports of certain steel products (‘Implementing Regulation 
2019/159’), be interpreted, with regard to the particular product categories with a 
specific CN code mentioned in Article 1(1) of that regulation, as referring to all of 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 1. 2025 – CASE C-115/25  
 
2  
the order numbers (tariff-rate quota) open for each period or only to the order 
number (tariff-rate quota) in relation to which the importer has submitted a tariff-
rate quota request? 
Must the expression ‘where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable’ in 
Article 2(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 
15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of 
China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
(‘Implementing Regulation 2021/1483’) be interpreted as referring only to the 
situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable because the 
‘relevant’ tariff-rate quota has been exhausted or as also referring to situations in 
which the additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as, for example, 
the failure to submit a request? 
Must Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 be interpreted as 
meaning that the collection of the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% is suspended only as 
a consequence of the application of the additional duty of 25% on account of the 
relevant tariff-rate quota having been exhausted or is it also suspended when the 
additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as, for example, the 
failure to submit a request? 
Must Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 and Article 2(1) and (2) 
of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of the 
latter regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the additional duty and the anti-
dumping duty cannot be imposed together, even in the case where, on the date on 
which the open tariff-rate quota with a particular order number was exhausted, 
the Commission opened a new tariff-rate quota with a different order number for 
products with the same CN code and the importer only requested the preferential 
customs procedure in relation to the exhausted tariff-rate quota? 
[…] [matters of national procedural law] 
GROUNDS 
I. Factual background 
1 The applicant is a commercial company involved in the wholesale metals and 
minerals trade. On 1 April 2022, the applicant, through its direct customs 
representative, initiated a customs procedure for release for free circulation at the 
Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-budapesti Igazgatóság (Budapest-South 
Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary; ‘the first-tier 
customs authority’). 
2 Using preference code 120 and giving quota order number 098847, the applicant 
requested the release for free circulation of the following products included in its 
STAPPERT MAGYARORSZÁG 
 
3 
declaration […]: in item 1 of the declaration, 11 802 kg of ‘cold-rolled products of 
stainless steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, of a thickness of 3 mm or more but 
less than 4.75 mm, containing by weight 2.5% or more of nickel’ consigned from 
Taiwan and having TARIC code 7219 32 10 00; in item 2 of the declaration, net 
30 136 kg of ‘cold-rolled products of stainless steel, of a width of 600 mm or 
more, of a thickness exceeding 1 mm but less than 3 mm, containing by weight 
2.5% or more of nickel’ consigned from Taiwan and having TARIC code 7219 33 
10 00; in item 3 of the declaration, net 7 619 kg of ‘flat-rolled products of 
stainless steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, worked, polished or surface heat-
treated, not perforated’ consigned from Taiwan and having TARIC code 7219 90 
80 00; and, in item 4 of the declaration, net 7 634 kg of ‘cold-rolled products of 
stainless steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more 
but not exceeding 1 mm, containing by weight 2.5% or more of nickel’ consigned 
from Taiwan and having TARIC code 7219 34 10 00. 
3 By its decision […] (‘the decision determining an anti-dumping duty’), the first-
tier customs authority ordered the release of the products for free circulation on 
1 April 2022; at the same time, it imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on the 
applicant, calculated at 6.8% and amounting to HUF 5 633 000, and it informed 
the applicant that it had to pay HUF 24 516 442 in respect of VAT. 
4 The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs 
Union examined the applicant’s request for the inclusion of items 1 to 4 of the 
customs procedure […] in the quota, as a result of which the following quota 
volumes were allocated to the applicant: 8 927.483 kg of the 11 802 kg requested 
in item 1 of the declaration; 22 796.019 kg of the 30 136 kg requested in item 2 of 
the declaration; 5 763.302 kg of the 7 619 kg requested in item 3 of the 
declaration; and 5 774.649 kg of the 7 634 kg requested in item 4 de la 
declaration. 
5 By its decision […] of 8 September 2022 (‘the decision to apply an additional 
duty’), the first-tier customs authority accepted preference code 120 and quota 
order number 098847, stated in items 1 to 4 of the customs procedure, only in 
respect of the volumes relating to the partial allocation of the tariff-rate quota; for 
the remaining volumes, not-included in the quota, it created new items 5 to 8 and 
applied an additional duty of 25%, yielding a figure of HUF 5 043 900, and 
informed the applicant of the existence of a difference of HUF 1 361 766 in 
respect of VAT. The customs authority in question stated that the subsequent 
application of an additional duty was due to the fact that the European 
Commission had, by means of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, imposed 
definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products. Under the 
safeguard measure, a tariff-rate quota was opened for steel products covered by 
that regulation, such that a non-preferential rate is applicable to the goods 
included in that quota and imports not included in the tariff-rate quota, in addition 
to the duty applicable to the majority of undertakings, are subject to an additional 
duty of 25%. The first-tier customs authority did not alter the decision 
determining an anti-dumping duty when it subsequently applied the additional 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 1. 2025 – CASE C-115/25  
 
4  
duty and, in relation to the anti-dumping duty determined at the time of release for 
free circulation, observed that Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 
could not apply because, at the time when the customs declaration was accepted – 
that is, 1 April 2022 – two quota order numbers were available, in respect of 
which, on 1 April 2022, only the quota volume relating to quota order number 
098847, given by the applicant, was exhausted, while the quota volume with the 
other quota order number (098578) remained available and was not exhausted 
until 11 April 2022. It was, therefore, possible to apply the anti-dumping duty and 
the additional duty, together, to the volume not included in the quota allocation. 
6 By a decision of […], the defendant, which considered the internal appeal brought 
by the applicant, confirmed the decision to apply an additional duty. It rejected the 
applicant’s appeal, concluding that, at the time when the declaration was accepted, 
there was still a tariff-rate quota available for the origin and TARIC code in 
question and that, in respect of the volume originally requested with quota order 
number 098847 and not granted by the Commission, the anti-dumping duty and 
the additional duty had to be applied together, until quota order number 098578 
was exhausted, since, in relation to that [volume] no tariff-rate quota had been 
requested. 
7 The applicant brought an administrative action against that decision of the 
defendant, in which it challenged the joint imposition of an anti-dumping duty and 
an additional duty. In the opinion of the applicant, the joint application of the anti-
dumping duty and the additional duty is contrary to the intention of the legislature 
expressed in recital 286 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483. It maintained, 
moreover, that it is not disputed that the first-tier customs authority imposed an 
additional duty of 25% on quota [order number] 098847, thereby applying the rate 
established in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159. The rate of 25% 
exceeds the 6.8% used to calculate the anti-dumping duty and, therefore, the anti-
dumping duty should be suspended pursuant to Article 2(1) of Implementing 
Regulation 2021/1483. In the opinion of the applicant, the decision to apply an 
additional duty is also contrary to law, since, from the point of view of the 
suspension of the anti-dumping duty, it deals with the exhaustion of the quotas 
with order numbers 098847 and 098578 together and, consequently, links the 
suspension of the anti-dumping duty to the exhaustion of the quota with [order] 
number 098578, which occurred on 11 April 2022. In that regard, the applicant 
highlights the fact that Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 
unequivocally links the suspension of the anti-dumping duty to the exhaustion of 
the quota, not to that of the quotas. It also submits that the quota with order 
number 098847 was exhausted on 1 April 2022 and that, consequently, the anti-
dumping duty imposed in relation to quota order number 098847 should be 
suspended, irrespective of whether there was still a quota volume available under 
another quota order number (098578). 
8 In its defence, the defendant repeated the assessments set out in its decision. In its 
opinion, the joint imposition of the anti-dumping duty and the additional duty is 
consistent with the law, given that, at the time when the declaration was accepted, 
STAPPERT MAGYARORSZÁG 
 
5 
there was still a tariff-rate quota volume available under order number 098578 for 
products with a certain origin and TARIC code. From the point of view of the 
suspension of the anti-dumping duty, dealing with the two order numbers (098847 
and 098578) together is in accordance with the law, in light of Article 1(1) of 
Implementing Regulation 2019/159, whereby the Commission opened tariff-rate 
quota volumes in relation to twenty-six categories of products and not in relation 
to individual order numbers. 
II.1. European Union law 
Implementing Regulation 2019/159 
Article 1 
1. Subject to Articles 6 and 7, a tariff quota is hereby opened in relation to 
imports into the Union of each of the 26 products categories concerned (defined 
by reference to the CN codes specified in relation to it in Annex I) and each of the 
periods specified in Annex IV.1 and IV.2. 
… 
6. Where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted or where imports of the 
product categories do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota, an additional 
duty at the rate of 25%, applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before 
duty, shall be applied on the product categories set out in Annex IV.1. 
Recital 186 
However, as mentioned in recital 117 of the provisional Regulation, the 
Commission acknowledges that a cumulation of anti-dumping/anti-subsidy 
measures with safeguards may lead to a greater effect than desirable. Since this 
issue of cumulation would only potentially arise once tariff-rate quota ceilings are 
reached … in order to avoid the imposition of ‘double remedies’ whenever the 
tariff quota is exceeded …. 
Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 
Recital 286 
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159, the Commission 
imposed a safeguard measure with respect to certain steel products for a period of 
three years. … Consequently, once the tariff quotas established under the 
safeguard measure are exceeded, both the above-quota tariff duty and the anti-
dumping duty would become payable on the same imports. … to prevent the 
concurrent application of the anti-dumping duty with the above-quota tariff duty 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 1. 2025 – CASE C-115/25  
 
6  
for the product under review for the duration of the imposition of the safeguard 
duty. 
Recital 287 
This means that where the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/159 becomes applicable to the product under review and 
exceeds the level of the anti-dumping duties pursuant to this Regulation, only the 
above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/159 
shall be collected. During the period of concurrent application of the safeguard 
and anti-dumping duties, the collection of the duties imposed pursuant to this 
Regulation shall be suspended. … 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of flat-rolled products 
of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold reduced), currently 
falling under CN codes 7219 31 00, 7219 32 10, 7219 32 90, 7219 33 10, 7219 33 
90, 7219 34 10, 7219 34 90, 7219 35 10, 7219 35 90, 7219 90 20, 7219 90 80, 
7220 20 21, 7220 20 29, 7220 20 41, 7220 20 49, 7220 20 81, 7220 20 89, 7220 
90 20 and 7220 90 80 and originating in the People’s Republic of China and 
Taiwan. 
2. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and 
produced by the companies listed below, shall be as follows: 
Country 
 
… 
Company Anti-dumping duty 
(%) 
TARIC additional 
code 
Taiwan Chia Far Industrial 
Factory Co., Ltd, 
Taipei City 
0 C030 
Taiwan All other 
companies 
6.8 C999 
Article 2 
1. Where the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/159 becomes applicable to flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not 
further worked than cold-rolled (cold reduced) and exceeds the equivalent ad 
valorem level of the anti-dumping duty set out in Article 1(2), only the above-
quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of Regulation (EU) 2019/159 shall be 
collected. 
2. During the period of application of paragraph 1, the collection of the duties 
imposed pursuant to this Regulation shall be suspended. 
STAPPERT MAGYARORSZÁG 
 
7 
… 
4. The part of the amount of anti-dumping duty not collected pursuant to 
paragraph 2 shall be suspended. 
5. The suspensions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 shall be limited in time to 
the period of application of the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) 
of Regulation (EU) 2019/159. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 
laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation 
(EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down 
the Community Customs Code 
Article 49 
1. Tariff quotas opened in accordance with Union legislation referring to the 
method of administration in this article and in Articles 50 to 54 of this Regulation 
shall be managed in accordance with the chronological order of dates of 
acceptance of customs declarations for release for free circulation. 
2. Each tariff quota is identified in the Union legislation by an order number 
that facilitates its management. 
III. Grounds of the order for reference 
9 By means of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, the Commission established an 
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain flat stainless steel products, not further 
worked than cold-rolled, originating in the People’s Republic of China or Taiwan, 
falling, inter alia, under CN codes 7219 32 10, 7219 33 10, 7219 34 10 and 7220 
90 80. Also, by means of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, the Commission 
imposed definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products, 
establishing the payment of an additional duty of 25% on imports from outside the 
European Union of products falling under CN codes 7219 32 10, 7219 33 10, 
7219 34 10 and 7219 90 80. 
10 The referring court considers that, in view of Hungarian law and the customs 
practice based on it, the dispute between the parties cannot be resolved without 
interpreting EU law. 
11 It is undisputed that on 1 April 2022 there were two order numbers (098847 and 
098578) for products with a certain origin and TARIC code. The applicant 
requested that the first-tier customs authority release the products in question for 
free circulation, giving only order number 098847; however, under the 
Commission’s decision, it was not allocated the whole of the tariff-rate quota 
volume requested, but rather only part of it. Nor is it disputed that the first-tier 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 1. 2025 – CASE C-115/25  
 
8  
customs authority received notification of the result of the allocation from the IT 
Institute of the National Tax and Customs Authority on 6 April 2022 (the order 
number having been exhausted on 1 April 2022). It is likewise undisputed that 
order number 098578, open from 1 April 2022 until it was exhausted (on 11 April 
2022), was still available and that, consequently, the European Commission 
suspended the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% only from that date. Thus, the facts 
make it clear that there were two order numbers open for the product. The 
applicant did not submit a request for the tariff-rate quota with order number 
098578, which was not exhausted until 11 April 2022, and nor does that party 
question that fact. 
12 According to the defendant, given that, at the time when the customs declaration 
was accepted, a tariff-rate quota volume for the origin and TARIC code in 
question was still available, it was correct, until order number 098578 was 
exhausted, to apply the anti-dumping duty and the additional duty, together, to the 
volume originally requested for order number 098847 and not allocated by the 
Commission, as the applicant did not submit a tariff-rate quota request for order 
number 098578. The defendant maintains that the applicant should have submitted 
a request for both order numbers and only in that case would it have been exempt 
from the double levy. 
13 The dispute between the parties arises, first of all, from the fact that, according to 
the defendant, the term ‘relevant’ used in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 
2019/159 is to be construed as referring to all order numbers used to identify the 
quota. The applicant, on the other hand, maintains that the substantive scope of the 
applicable legislation is steel products, and, therefore, a tariff-rate quota request 
relating to a certain product, made on a certain date, should be treated as a single 
request, even if the Commission opens another order number after that date, once 
the first number has been exhausted; the duty applicable to the majority of 
undertakings should be suspended in respect of the items not stated, irrespective 
of what is stated in the request. 
14 The referring court, therefore, first requests guidance regarding how the term 
‘relevant’, used in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, is to be 
interpreted. 
15 According to Article 49(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, the concept of 
a tariff-rate quota is defined by the order number. From that formulation, it 
appears to follow that the concept of a tariff-rate quota is defined individually by 
each order number; that is, for each tariff-rate quota there is an order number and 
multiple order numbers identify multiple tariff-rate quotas, such that the two 
expressions are synonymous. Consequently, all of the order numbers have to be 
exhausted for the duty applicable to the majority of undertakings to be suspended 
in respect of each order number. That is the defendant’s point of view. 
16 In contrast to the preceding view, the referring court refers to Article 1(1) and (6) 
of, and Annex IV to, Implementing Regulation 2019/159. From the structure of 
STAPPERT MAGYARORSZÁG 
 
9 
the legislation and from the logical and literal interpretation of the paragraphs 
mentioned, it may be deduced that the tariff-rate quota is determined in net tonnes 
and broken down into product categories, CN codes, time periods and countries, 
and that Implementing Regulation 2019/159 uses the expression in the singular; 
that is to say, even if various order numbers are assigned, those order numbers 
ultimately make up a single tariff-rate quota. In that regard, the referring court 
also notes that Implementing Regulation 2019/159 uses the expression ‘tariff-rate 
quota’ in the plural in different passages (for example, in recital 136 1), although, 
from the context, it is evident that the use of the plural refers to the entire tariff-
rate quota for each of the products. Recital 286 of Implementing Regulation 
2021/1483 refers to the situation in which the tariff-rate quotas are exceeded; that 
is, it uses the expression in the plural, while that same regulation uses the singular 
in previous and subsequent passages of the legislation. In the English and German 
versions, a distinction is also made with the use of the singular and the plural. 
17 The question that must be answered in this context, therefore, is whether the term 
‘relevant’ in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 refers to the 
twenty-six product categories in themselves or to the entirety of the tariff-rate 
quota, broken down into particular products – in the present case, to two order 
numbers. If the expression ‘tariff-rate quota’ refers exclusively to the product, it is 
irrelevant whether there are various order numbers open, since, after the first order 
number – being the tariff-rate quota – is exhausted, the additional duty of 25% is 
only applied to imports of volumes not included in the allocation. That is, if the 
term ‘relevant’ refers only to the product, the two order numbers (098847 and 
098578) must be treated separately, since, according to the Customs Code, doing 
so facilitates management. Although, in accordance with Article 2(1) of 
Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, given that the quota relating to order 
number 098847 was exhausted on 1 April 2022, the anti-dumping duty imposed in 
respect of the quota relating to order number 098578 should also have been 
suspended when the first order number was exhausted, as indicated by the fact that 
Implementing Regulation 2019/159 itself uses the expression ‘tariff-rate quota’ in 
the singular. 
18 However, if the term ‘relevant’ refers to each of the individual order numbers as a 
tariff-rate quota, the referring court wishes to know what consequences should 
flow from the fact that the applicant requested inclusion in the tariff-rate quota 
only in respect of one order number. According to the facts of the case, the fact 
that the applicant submitted a request for a single order number in relation to a 
certain product and did not submit such a request for the other open order number 
is not insignificant. In the proceedings, it was not made clear why the applicant 
did not also submit a request for the other order number and whether that was due 
to an error, with the applicant believing that it would be allocated the requested 
volume in relation to all of the items, or whether there was some other reason for 
it. No fraudulent intent underlying its actions has been made evident. So then, the 
 
1 TN: in plural in the Hungarian-language version (‘vámkontingensek’). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21. 1. 2025 – CASE C-115/25  
 
10  
questions arises of whether, when it comes to interpreting the legislation, the fact 
that the applicant had the option of requesting a quota with another order number 
is relevant. 
19 The interpretation of the term ‘relevant’ is also of particular importance because 
Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 contains a reference to Article 1(6) of 
Implementing Regulation 2019/159, in so far as it uses that term as a general 
concept; that is, it makes reference to that term with the wording ‘the above-quota 
tariff duty … becomes applicable’. The same legal-technical solution appears, 
unequivocally, in the English and German versions, as well as the Hungarian 
version, from which it is clear that the legislature acted deliberately. Article 2(1) 
of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 provides that an additional duty will be 
imposed only where the above-quota tariff duty becomes applicable. Paragraph 2 
of that article provides for the suspension of the 6.8% anti-dumping duty in such a 
case. The question that arises is, if the legislature wished to make the suspension 
of the anti-dumping duty conditional only on the tariff-rate quota being exceeded, 
why did it use such a complicated formulation, instead of providing that the rate 
of 25% would only apply in the event that the tariff-rate quota was exceeded? This 
legislative solution therefore raises the question of, on the one hand, in what cases 
the tariff-rate quota may be assessed to have been exceeded and, on the other, 
whether, in the event that the rate of 25% is applied, the application of the rate of 
6.8% must be suspended in all cases or solely when the rate of 25% is applied 
because the tariff-rate quota has been exhausted. 
20 In the present case, given that the additional duty is calculated at 25%, while the 
anti-dumping duty is calculated at a lower rate of 6.8%, the request for a 
preliminary ruling made by the referring court seeks to clarify, on the basis of the 
facts set out above, whether, pursuant to Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 
2021/1483, the defendant was only authorised to collect the additional duty of 
25%, or whether its actions, that is the collection of the additional duty and the 
anti-dumping duty together, is consistent with Article 2(2) of Implementing 
Regulation 2021/1483, in accordance with which, during the period of application 
of paragraph 1, the collection of the duties imposed pursuant to that regulation – 
that is, the anti-dumping duty – is to be suspended. In that regard, account should 
be taken, on the one hand, of the fact that, in the recitals of Implementing 
Regulation 2021/1483, the Commission stated that cumulation of anti-dumping 
measures with safeguard measures may lead to an effect on trade greater than 
desirable and, on the other, of the fact that Article 2(1) of Implementing 
Regulation 2021/1483 reflects the intention of the legislature to prohibit, 
expressly, the joint imposition of the anti-dumping duty and the additional duty in 
the event that the quota is exhausted. 
IV. Other procedural matters 
21 […] 
STAPPERT MAGYARORSZÁG 
 
11 
22 […] [matters of national procedural law] 
Budapest, 21 January 2025. 
[…] [signatures]