Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:796
Date: 2025-10-16
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation  C-659/24 – 1 
Case C-659/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
9 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 May 2024 
Applicant and appellant on a point of law: 
A-GmbH & Co. KG 
Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: 
Hauptzollamt C 
  
[…] 
BUNDESFINANZHOF (FEDERAL FISCAL COURT, GERMANY) 
ORDER 
In the case of 
A-GmbH & Co. KG 
Applicant and appellant on a point of law 
represented by: 
B 
v 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-659/24 
 
2  
Hauptzollamt C 
Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law 
on account of: Rejection of the application for retroactive extension of an 
authorisation (customs), 
 
the Seventh Chamber, 
at the sitting of 14 May 2024, made the following order: 
I. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Is Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of 
20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain 
bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China from the 
extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty 
imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (‘Regulation 88/97’) (OJ 
1997 L 17, p. 17) to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption from the 
extended anti-dumping duty may be combined with the other exemptions 
under Article 14(a) and/or (b) of Regulation 88/97 in the same authorisation 
for an end use within the meaning of Article 254 of the Union Customs 
Code? 
2. May Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 be interpreted as meaning that, 
in the authorisation, fewer than 300 units of a given essential bicycle part per 
customer may be exempted from the extended anti-dumping duty on a 
monthly basis? 
3. Does the quantity of fewer than 300 units on a monthly basis referred 
to in Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 constitute an exemption threshold, 
with the consequence that the exemption from the extended anti-dumping 
duty as a whole ceases to apply if a party declares or forwards more than 
299 units on a monthly basis, or does it constitute an allowance, in which 
case 299 units remain exempted in any event, regardless of whether that 
quantity is exceeded? 
II. The proceedings are stayed pending the decision of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union on the questions referred for a preliminary 
ruling. 
G r o u n d s 
A-GMBH & CO. KG 
 
3 
I. 
1 The applicant and appellant on a point of law (‘the applicant’) imports various 
bicycle parts from the People’s Republic of China (‘China’). In that context, there 
is a dispute with the customs administration regarding the conditions under which 
bicycle parts may be imported without the imposition of an anti-dumping duty. 
2 For many years, the applicant has held an authorisation to apply the end-use 
procedure governed by Article 254 of the Union Customs Code – ‘the UCC’ 
(formerly governed by Article 82 of the Community Customs Code – ‘the CCC’). 
That authorisation has been repeatedly updated. 
3 The authorisation referred to various exemptions, specified in Article 14 of 
Regulation 88/97, from the extended anti-dumping duty under Council Regulation 
(EC) No 71/97 of 10 January 1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty 
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People’s 
Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People’s Republic 
of China, and levying the extended duty on such imports registered under 
Regulation (EC) No 703/96 (‘Regulation 71/96’) (OJ 1997 L 16, p. 55) for certain 
essential bicycle parts itemised in the authorisation. Initially, the defendant and 
respondent on a point of law (the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) – ‘the 
HZA’) had included in the authorisation the exemptions provided for in 
Article 14(a) to (c) of Regulation 88/97 and had stated that, on a monthly basis, 
fewer than 300 units of each essential bicycle part could be declared for the 
importer’s own purposes or, on a monthly basis, fewer than 300 units of each 
essential bicycle part per party could be forwarded to other parties (final 
customers). The HZA subsequently amended the end-use authorisation to the 
extent that it no longer related to Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 but only to the 
exemptions provided for in Article 14(a) and (b) of Regulation 88/97. 
4 In 2018, the applicant requested that the exemption provided for in Article 14(c) 
of Regulation 88/97 be added to the authorisation with retroactive effect from 
1 January 2018, which the HZA refused to do. The objection lodged against that 
refusal was unsuccessful. 
5 The Finanzgericht (Finance Court) upheld the finding of the HZA and ruled that 
the extension of the authorisation with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018 
requested by the applicant so that it could import 299 units of essential bicycle 
parts per month per customer duty-free in accordance with Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97 had rightly been refused. The authorisation provided for in 
Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97, it held, was intended only for small traders who 
remained below the reference quantity of 300 units of each essential bicycle part. 
That limitation, it stated, was based on the total quantity obtained by the 
authorisation holder, which meant that an authorisation allowing 299 units of an 
essential bicycle part per customer on a monthly basis was consistent with neither 
the wording of the extension regulation nor its intended purpose. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-659/24 
 
4  
6 The applicant challenges that judgment by means of its appeal on a point of law 
on the ground that the concept of ‘small traders’ is not defined in the relevant 
regulations. It is therefore unclear, it argues, from which order of magnitude a 
business may be classified as large. It contends that the objective of Regulation 
71/97 is only to prevent fragmentation at the time of release for free circulation or 
end use which would result from apportionment to various undertakings acting as 
customs declarants and subsequent aggregation under one consignee. 
Accordingly, it asserts, the decisive point is not the quantity of essential bicycle 
parts purchased by intermediaries but the monthly quantities originating in China 
which are ultimately delivered to end users. It maintains that a quantity of fewer 
than 300 units is a duty-free allowance and not an exemption threshold. 
II. 
7 […] [Stay of proceedings] 
8 […] [Repetition of question 1] 
9 […] [Repetition of question 2] 
10 […] [Repetition of question 3] 
III. 
11 In the view of the Chamber, the key to resolving the dispute lies in establishing 
which imports of essential bicycle parts are exempted from the extended anti-
dumping duty. There are doubts as to the interpretation of the applicable 
provisions of EU law: 
12 Applicable European Union law: 
13 Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of 
bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China and collecting definitively 
the provisional anti-dumping duty – ‘Regulation 2474/93’ (OJ 1993 L 228, p. 1): 
‘A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of bicycles and 
other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorised falling within CN code 
8712 00, originating in the People’s Republic of China.’ 
14 Article 2(1) of Regulation 71/97: 
‘The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2474/93 on 
imports of bicycles falling within CN code 8712 00 and originating in the 
People’s Republic of China is hereby extended to imports of essential bicycle 
parts originating in the People’s Republic of China.’ 
15 Article 3 of Regulation 71/97: 
A-GMBH & CO. KG 
 
5 
‘(1) The Commission shall, after consulting the Advisory Committee, adopt by 
regulation the necessary measures to authorise the exemption of imports of 
essential bicycle parts which do not circumvent the anti-dumping duty imposed by 
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 from the duty extended by Article 2. 
(2) The Commission regulation shall, in particular, provide for: 
– … 
– authorisation of the exemption and control of imports of essential bicycle 
parts, in particular by intermediaries or with regard to their use in small quantities 
by small-scale operators, 
– …’ 
16 Recital 38 of Regulation 71/97: 
‘The end use by reason of which imports should benefit from an exemption from 
the anti-dumping duty shall be defined by reference, (i) to assembly operations 
found not to be circumventing, and (ii) to the use of essential bicycle parts in 
small quantities by small scale operators, notably for replacement purposes, which 
should be presumed not to constitute circumvention. In the latter case, imports of 
essential bicycle parts will be of limited economic significance, and will be 
unlikely to undermine the effect of the existing duty in terms of the quantities of 
bicycles that might be produced from such imported parts within the meaning of 
Article 13(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation. 
17 In order to allow intermediaries, who do not import essential bicycle parts 
directly, to purchase these parts from importers and to resell them to non-
circumventing assembly operations, such transactions should also be monitored 
under the end use control system.’ 
18 Recital 41 of Regulation 71/97: 
‘In this respect, and with a view to pending or future applications, the 
Commission should be charged with establishing within such a system lists of 
companies whose exemption from the extended duty is authorised.’ 
19 Article 12 of Regulation 88/97: 
‘The parties listed in Annex II are hereby exempted from the extended duty with 
effect form 20 April 1996.’ 
20 Article 14 of Regulation 88/97: 
‘Where imports of essential bicycle parts are declared for free circulation by a 
person other than an exempted party, as from the date of entry into force of the 
Reference Regulation, they shall be exempted from the application of the 
extended duty if declared in accordance with the Taric structure in Annex III and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-659/24 
 
6  
subject to the conditions laid down in Article 82 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 
and Articles 291 to 304 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, which shall be 
applicable mutatis mutandis, where: 
(a) the essential bicycle parts are delivered to a party exempted pursuant to 
Articles 7 or 12; or 
(b) the essential bicycle parts are delivered to another holder of an authorisation 
within the meaning of Article 291 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93; or 
(c) on a monthly basis, less than 300 units per type of essential bicycle parts are 
either declared for free circulation by a party or are delivered to it. The number of 
parts declared by or delivered to any party shall be calculated by reference to the 
number of parts declared by or delivered to all parties which are associated with or 
have compensatory arrangements with that party.’ 
21 By Commission Regulation (EU) No 512/2013 of 4 June 2013 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 88/97 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of 
certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China from the 
extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty 
imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 1), that 
article was extended as follows: 
‘(c) …; or 
(d) the essential bicycle parts are for use in the assembly of cycles fitted with an 
auxiliary motor (TARIC additional code 8835).’ 
22 Recital 4 of Regulation 88/97: 
‘… Secondly, imports of essential bicycle parts should also be exempted from the 
extended duty where they are admitted under end-use control and where they are 
finally delivered to an exempted assembler, or are declared for free circulation or 
delivered to a party in limited quantities. … Where less than 300 units per month 
of any type of essential bicycle parts are declared for free circulation by, or 
delivered to, a party, such imports of essential bicycles parts will be of limited 
economic significance, and will be unlikely to undermine the effect of the duty 
imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93. They should, therefore, be presumed 
not to constitute circumvention. 
23 Thirdly, imports of essential bicycle parts should conditionally be exempted from 
the extended duty by suspension of the payment of the extended duty, where they 
are declared for free circulation by, or on behalf of, an assembler which is under 
examination by the Commission.’ 
24 Recital 8 of Regulation 88/97: 
A-GMBH & CO. KG 
 
7 
‘Other parties which cannot be exempted by the Commission because they do not 
carry out assembly operations may nonetheless also benefit from the exemption 
system where they declare the goods under end-use control and deliver essential 
bicycle parts to exempted parties or to other holders of an end-use authorisation, 
or under the de minimis clause. 
25 It is, however, necessary for the customers of those parties, if they are assemblers 
but are not yet exempted and if they use parts in quantities above the de minimis 
threshold, to obtain an exemption from the Commission.’ 
26 Article 211 of the UCC: 
‘1. An authorisation from the customs authorities shall be required for the 
following: 
(a) the use of the inward or outward processing procedure, the temporary 
admission procedure or the end-use procedure; 
…’ 
27 ‘Article 254 of the UCC: 
1. Under the end-use procedure, goods may be released for free circulation 
under a duty exemption or at a reduced rate of duty on account of their specific 
use. 
…’ 
IV. 
28 Whether and to what extent the applicant has a claim to retroactive extension of its 
authorisation within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph of 
Article 211(1) of the UCC depends on the interpretation of Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97. In particular, it is dependent on whether the exemption under 
that provision may be granted along with other exemptions referred to in 
Article 14 of Regulation 88/97 and whether, under Article 14(c) of Regulation 
88/97, the importation of fewer than 300 units of a particular essential bicycle part 
in a month may be authorised for each authorisation holder only or for each 
customer. The question also arises as to the consequences if the holder of an 
authorisation exceeds that quantity. In the view of the referring court, how the 
exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty for imports of essential bicycle 
parts under Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 is to be understood, in other words 
whether it is an exemption threshold or a duty-free allowance, is a matter of doubt. 
29 1. Regulation 2474/93 imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles and 
other cycles (including delivery tricycles), not motorised ‘falling within CN code 
8712 00’, originating in the People’s Republic of China (Article 1(1) of 
Regulation 2474/93). That duty was extended a few years later, by Article 2(1) of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-659/24 
 
8  
Regulation 71/97, to imports of certain essential bicycle parts originating in 
China, in order to avoid circumvention of the anti-dumping duty. The anti-
dumping duty, however, was not to be levied on imports for which there was no 
reason to fear circumvention because of the attachment of a certificate of non-
circumvention (see recital 30 of Regulation 71/97). At the same time, the 
Commission was empowered to provide for exemptions for imports of essential 
bicycle parts which did not circumvent the anti-dumping duty imposed by 
Regulation 2474/93 (Article 3(1) of Regulation 71/97). In that context, the EU 
legislature considered that an exemption was justified for assembly operations, the 
use of essential bicycle parts in small quantities by small-scale operators, notably 
for replacement purposes (recital 38 of Regulation 71/97) and parts imported by 
exempted parties (recital 41 of Regulation 71/97). One of the key factors for the 
exemption of imports of small quantities was the fact that they are of limited 
economic significance (recital 38 of Regulation 71/97). 
30 On the basis of Article 3 of Regulation 71/97, the European Commission adopted 
Regulation 88/97, which contains provisions defining the circumstances in which 
certain imports of essential bicycle parts may be exempted from the extended anti-
dumping duty. Besides direct importation by exempted parties under Article 12 of 
Regulation 88/97, read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation, to which 
category the applicant does not belong, which means that that exception cannot be 
applied in the present case, other exemptions were provided for in Article 14 of 
Regulation 88/97 for non-exempted parties. For those exceptions to apply, the 
imported essential parts of bicycles must have been released for free circulation 
under the end-use procedure governed by Article 254 of the UCC (under the CCC, 
governed by Article 82 of the CCC). 
31 Specifically, that concerns deliveries of essential bicycle parts to a party exempted 
pursuant to Article 7 or 12 of Regulation 88/97 (Article 14(a) of Regulation 
88/97), deliveries of essential bicycle parts to another holder of an authorisation 
within the meaning of Article 291 of the Customs Code Implementing Regulation 
or of Article 254 of the UCC (Article 14(b) of Regulation 88/97), essential bicycle 
parts for use in the assembly of cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor, known as e-
bikes (Article 14(d) of Regulation 88/97) or deliveries of smaller quantities 
(Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97), to which the present case relates. The latter 
are deemed to exist where, on a monthly basis, fewer than 300 units per type of 
essential bicycle parts are declared for free circulation ‘by a party or are delivered 
to it’ (German: ‘von einer Partei … angemeldet oder an sie geliefert werden’; 
French: ‘par une partie, soit livrées à celle-ci’). The number of parts declared by 
or delivered to any party is to be calculated by reference to the number of parts 
declared by or delivered to all parties which are associated with or have 
compensatory arrangements with that party (second sentence of Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97). This is also intended to enable intermediaries or small traders 
to import essential bicycle parts in small quantities free of anti-dumping duties, 
for example because they are needed for replacement purposes (see the second 
indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation 71/97). 
A-GMBH & CO. KG 
 
9 
32 2. It is unclear whether only one of the four options referred to in Article 14 of 
Regulation 88/97 can be authorised or whether the end-use authorisation can 
cover two or more exemption grounds cumulatively. 
33 The referring court considers that the exceptions to the extended anti-dumping 
duty provided for in Article 14(a), (b) and (d) of Regulation 88/97 can be 
combined, because each relates to a separate type of consignee or to assembly 
operations and so there is no substantive overlap between those options. 
34 As regards the exemption provided for in Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97, there 
are doubts, however, as to whether that situation may be combined with other 
grounds for exemption within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation 88/97 in an 
end-use authorisation. Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 has beneficial effects in 
two specific situations. The first relates to imports declared for free circulation by 
a non-exempt party. Under that provision, the applicant, as a non-exempt party, 
could, on a monthly basis, declare up to 299 units of essential bicycle parts for 
free circulation for its own use by virtue of the end-use procedure. The second 
alternative relates to deliveries to a non-exempt party. That the reference in both 
cases can only be to non-exempt parties follows from the use of the term ‘party’ 
rather than the term ‘exempted party’, as used, for example, in the seventh indent 
of Article 1 of Regulation 88/97, and from the fact that deliveries to exempted 
parties are already covered by Article 14(a) of Regulation 88/97. In the view of 
the referring court, the second alternative covers situations in which the holder of 
an authorisation acts as an intermediary and forwards the imported goods to 
another undertaking. Another possible case would be one in which the customs 
declaration was lodged by an indirect representative acting as the declarant within 
the meaning of Article 5(15) of the UCC and the essential bicycle parts were then 
delivered to the non-exempt party on whose behalf the customs declaration was 
lodged. 
35 Besides the wording of the provision (‘or’), its spirit and purpose also militate 
against a combination of the exemption provided for in Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97 with the exemptions provided for in Article 14(a) and/or (b) of 
Regulation 88/97. The purpose of the exemption under Article 14(c) of Regulation 
88/97 was to favour parties which did not already have their own end-use 
authorisation, such as repairers buying spare parts through another party. In 
addition, as is apparent from recital 38 of Regulation 71/97 and recital 4 of 
Regulation 88/97, the purpose of the exemption provided for in Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97 was not to levy an anti-dumping duty on imports which are of 
limited economic significance and which therefore do not lead to circumvention 
of the anti-dumping duty. It therefore seems questionable whether a party’s 
imports may still be deemed to be of lesser economic significance where that 
party, while benefiting from the exemptions provided for in Article 14(a) and/or 
(b) of Regulation 88/97, could also import a total of considerably more than 299 
units of essential bicycle parts free of anti-dumping duties on a monthly basis. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 5. 2024 – CASE C-659/24 
 
10  
36 On the other hand, nothing seems to rule out absolutely the possibility of the end-
use authorisation combining the exemption provided for in Article 14(c) of 
Regulation 88/97 with other exemptions. First, the legislature has made no 
stipulations in that regard, which could indicate that such a combination did not 
seem problematic from its perspective. On the other hand, it is not clear why 
deliveries to beneficiary parties under Article 14(a) and/or (b) of Regulation 88/97 
and other deliveries under Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 cannot be exempted 
from the extended anti-dumping duty as long as it is possible to establish a clear 
link between each delivery and a particular ground for exemption. 
37 The referring court is inclined to consider that exemptions under both 
Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 and Article 14(a) and/or (b) of Regulation 88/97 
cannot be combined in an end-use authorisation. Such cumulation would have the 
effect, contrary to the legislative intention described above, of extending the 
exemption of imports from anti-dumping duties to a number of units considerably 
higher than 299 per declarant party, whereas the purpose of limiting the number of 
units was to ensure that only imports of lesser economic significance would 
benefit from exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty. In short, the 
Chamber understands Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 as a catch-all provision 
for parties which cannot already benefit from the other exemptions. 
38 3. Furthermore, it is not clear from Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 whether the 
limit of fewer than 300 units of an essential bicycle part on a monthly basis is to 
be understood as meaning that the party declaring the bicycle parts for free 
circulation may deliver that quantity of a particular essential bicycle part per 
customer free of anti-dumping duty or only an aggregate total of 299 units of that 
part. The referring court considers that imports would no longer be of lesser 
economic significance if the quantitative limit applied per customer and therefore 
large-scale importers also benefited from the exemption from anti-dumping duty. 
If large-scale importers with numerous customers benefited from exemption, large 
quantities of essential bicycle parts would consequently be released for circulation 
free of anti-dumping duty under the end-use procedure, even though anti-dumping 
duty should be levied on them by virtue of Regulation 71/97. This would run 
counter to the intention of the legislature, which sought to exempt only imports of 
lesser economic significance from the extended anti-dumping duty (see recital 38 
of Regulation 71/97 and recital 4 of Regulation 88/97). The wording of 
Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 (‘or are delivered to it’) also suggests a 
reference to the previously mentioned party. By contrast, there is no focus on 
customers. Reference should also be made to recital 8 of Regulation 88/97, which 
makes an express distinction between parties and their customers. 
39 When it comes to assessing the question whether the quantity indicated in 
Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 is to be understood as per customer or per 
authorisation holder, the referring court considers that the nature of a party’s 
business conduct is immaterial. All that matters, on the basis of the wording of 
Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97, is how many units or what quantities of 
essential bicycle parts are declared by a party or are forwarded to it. A party’s 
A-GMBH & CO. KG 
 
11 
motives or its presence in the market, on the other hand, are not addressed in that 
provision. Any intention to exceed the limit of a maximum of 299 units is also 
immaterial, because the authorisation would be limited to fewer than 300 units 
and additional quantities could not be released for free circulation free of anti-
dumping duty, and any such duty arising would have to be recovered. 
Article 15(2) of Regulation 88/97 is likewise focused on actual exceeding of the 
threshold and not on the mere intention to exceed it. It cannot be inferred from 
that provision, moreover, that the end-use authorisation could not be issued from 
the outset if it might possibly have to be revoked later. 
40 4. The resolution of the dispute ultimately depends on whether the limit of fewer 
than 300 units of a particular essential bicycle part on a monthly basis is an 
exemption threshold or a duty-free allowance. In the case of an exemption 
threshold, there would be no exemption from extended anti-dumping duty at all if 
a party declared or delivered more than 299 units on a monthly basis. Should the 
number of units specified in Article 14(c) of Regulation No 88/97 be a duty-free 
allowance, on the other hand, 299 units would remain free of anti-dumping duty 
regardless of whether that number was exceeded. 
41 The stated intention of the legislature to benefit only smaller-scale importers or 
consignees seems to favour the exemption threshold interpretation. Otherwise, if 
the number were to be interpreted as a duty-free allowance, the benefit would 
extend, at least in part, to larger-scale imports, because even if the quantitative 
ceiling were exceeded, 299 units of a particular essential bicycle part would still 
be exempt from the extended anti-dumping duty. 
42 In that context, the referring court would refer to the Court’s judgment of 12 May 
2021 in Hauptzollamt B (Sturgeon caviar), C-87/20, EU:C:2021:382, 
paragraph 38 et seq., in which the Court of Justice considered the quantity of 125 
grams of sturgeon caviar per person that could be imported without submission of 
an import permit to be an exemption threshold. 
43 5. The legal questions raised at the outset have not yet been clarified by the Court 
of Justice. 
44 In its judgment in Isaac International of 29 July 2010, C-371/09, EU:C:2010:458, 
the Court ruled on the conditions under which a customs declaration may be 
regarded as an application for authorisation of temporary importation. In addition, 
the Court was called upon to clarify whether Article 212a of the CCC permits an 
exemption from anti-dumping duty to be granted to an importer who does not 
have the necessary authorisation. The Court, however, was not asked to address 
the legal issues raised in the present case.