Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:175
Date: 2002-07-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Financial provisions;Free movement of goods;Commercial policy;Customs Union;Own resources
Concepts: Own resources of the Communities
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import 
or export duties — General principle of fairness laid down in Regulation 
No 1430/79 — Scope 
(Council Regulation No 1430/79, Art. 13(1» 
II - 2957 
SUMMARY — CASE T-239/00 
2. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import 
or export duties — Power of decision of the Commission — Rules for its exercise — 
Definition of 'special situations' 
(Council Regulation No 1430/97, Art. 13) 
1. A r t i c l e 13(1) of R e g u l a t i o n 
No 1430/79 on the repayment or 
remission of import or export duties 
constitutes a general equitable provi­
sion designed to cover situations other 
than those which arose most often in 
practice and for which special provi­
sion could be made when the regu­
lation was adopted. 
That provision makes the repayment of 
import duties subject to the fulfilment 
of two cumulative conditions, namely 
the existence of a special situation and 
the absence of deception or obvious 
negligence on the part of the economic 
operator. 
(see paras 44-45) 
2. Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/97 
on the repayment or remission of 
import or export duties is intended to 
be applied where the circumstances 
characterising the relationship between 
a trader and the administration are 
such that it would be inequitable to 
require the trader to bear a loss which 
it normally would not have incurred. In 
applying that article, the Commission 
has a discretion, which it is required to 
exercise by actually balancing, on the 
one hand, the Community interest in 
ensuring that the customs provisions 
are respected and, on the other, the 
interest of the importer acting in good 
faith not to incur damage beyond 
normal commercial risk. Consequently, 
when examining whether an appli­
cation for remission is justified, it 
cannot simply take account of the 
conduct of importers. It must also 
assess the impact of its own conduct 
on the resulting situation even if it is at 
fault. 
The possibility that price undertaking 
documents are subsequently discovered 
to be invalid is a trade risk inherent in 
the importation business. Post-clear­
ance verifications would be largely 
deprived of their usefulness if the use 
of false certificates could, of itself, 
II - 2958 
SCI UK v COMMISSION 
justify granting a remission. The oppo­
site result could discourage traders 
from adopting an inquiring attitude 
and make the public purse bear a risk 
which falls mainly on traders. 
It is the responsibility of traders to 
make the necessary arrangements in 
their contractual relations to guard 
against the risks of an action for post-
clearance payment. The presentation of 
documents subsequently found to be 
invalid cannot in itself constitute a 
special situation justifying repayment 
of import duties even where such 
documents were presented in good 
faith. A different conclusion, namely 
that there was a special situation, 
would only be possible in the event of 
serious failures by the Commission or 
the customs authorities, facilitating the 
fraudulent use of the price undertaking 
documents. 
(see paras 50-51, 55-59) 
II - 2959