Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:413
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: Latvian

summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification by a person to the customs authorities, or the submission of an application for an authorisation or any other decision, shall render the person concerned responsible for all of the following: (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given in the declaration, notification or application; (b) the authenticity, accuracy and validity of any document supporting the declaration, notification or application; (c) where applicable, compliance with all of the obligations relating to the placing of the goods in question under the customs procedure concerned, or to the conduct of the authorised operations. The first subparagraph shall also apply to the provision of any information in any other form required by, or given to, the customs authorities. …’ 7 Article 46 of the code, entitled ‘Risk management and customs controls’, provides in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘The customs authorities may carry out any customs controls they deem necessary. Customs controls may in particular consist of examining goods, taking samples, verifying the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents, examining the accounts of economic operators and other records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried by or on persons and carrying out official enquiries and other similar acts.’ 8 Article 48 of the code, entitled ‘Post-release control’, is worded as follows: ‘For the purpose of customs controls, the customs authorities may verify the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a customs declaration, temporary storage declaration, entry summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification, and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of any supporting document and may examine the accounts of the declarant and other records relating to the operations in respect of the goods in question or to prior or subsequent commercial operations involving those goods after having released them. Those authorities may also examine such goods and/or take samples where it is still possible for them to do so. Such inspections may be carried out at the premises of the holder of the goods or of the holder’s representative, of any other person directly or indirectly involved in those operations in a business capacity or of any other person in possession of those documents and data for business purposes.’ 9 Article 173 of the code, entitled ‘Amendment of a customs declaration’, provides, in paragraph 3: ‘Upon application by the declarant, within three years of the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, the amendment of the customs declaration may be permitted after release of the goods in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned.’ The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 10 In July 2022, Delve submitted three customs declarations to release into free circulation goods classified as ‘washers of iron or steel’ (‘the goods at issue’), received from Tandl Industry Co., Ltd, a company established in China. The goods at issue were declared under the code 7318 22 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1832 of 12 October 2021 (OJ 2021 L 385, p. 1) (‘the CN’), and under the code 7318 22 00 98 of the integrated tariff of the European Communities (TARIC), referred to in Article 2 of Regulation No 2658/87. 11 Those customs declarations were accompanied by invoices which, dated 22 December 2021, indicated neither the identity of their issuer nor the producer of the goods at issue to which they related. Consequently, the goods at issue were subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty rate of 86.5% (TARIC additional code C999), applicable to ‘all other companies’, in accordance with the table in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191. 12 In September 2022, Delve submitted, to the State Tax Authority, an application for the amendment of those customs declarations. By that amendment, Delve sought to replace TARIC additional code C999 by TARIC additional code C797, applicable to imports from the manufacturer Jiashan Xiaohai Metal Products Factory, listed in the annex to Implementing Regulation 2022/191. That had to result, according to Delve, in the application of the definitive anti-dumping duty rate of 39.6%, applicable to ‘other cooperating companies listed in [the] Annex’, as provided for in Article 1(2). That application for amendment was accompanied by a second version of the three invoices referred to in the preceding paragraph, which, however, again bore the date of 22 December 2021. 13 The State Tax Authority, however, refused to make the amendments sought on the ground that the manufacturer’s declaration did not comply with the requirements of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191. First, it considered that the product indicated therein, namely ‘screws’, could not be equated with the declared product, namely ‘washers’. Secondly, it considered that the amended declaration contained neither the name of the representative who signed it nor the date. 14 On 6 March 2023, Delve submitted, to the State Tax Authority, a new application for amendment of the three customs declarations, accompanied by a third version of the three invoices referred to in paragraph 11 of the present judgment. Those new documents, although drawn up after the customs declarations, still bore the date of 22 December 2021. By three decisions adopted on 15 December 2023, the State Tax Authority, although finding that the latter invoices now met the formal requirements of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, nevertheless again refused to amend those customs declarations. 15 The State Tax Authority, referring, inter alia, to recitals 606 and 607 of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 and to the judgment of 12 October 2017, Tigers (C‑156/16, ‘the judgment in Tigers’, EU:C:2017:754), considered that the submission, after a customs declaration had been lodged, of an invoice complying with the requirements of Article 1(3) of that implementing regulation, was not in itself sufficient to claim the automatic application of the individual anti-dumping duty rate. Delve should have submitted, for that purpose, evidence establishing unequivocally that Jiashan Xiaohai Metal Products Factory was the actual producer of the goods at issue, which that importer had still failed to do. 16 Delve brought an action against those decisions of the State Tax Authority before the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District Administrative Court, Latvia), which is the referring court. In support of its action, it submits that it complied with the formal requirements of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, which the State Tax Authority itself acknowledged. Therefore, that authority should have accepted the amendment of the customs declarations concerned and applied the reduced anti-dumping duty rate applicable to Jiashan Xiaohai Metal Products Factory. 17 The referring court expresses doubts as to whether an importer may claim the right to amend a customs declaration which did not, at the outset, meet the requirements of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 by producing, after that declaration, and for the purposes of being subject to a reduced rate of anti-dumping duty, an invoice complying with those requirements. 18 Furthermore, the referring court notes a potential contradiction between the wording of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, which requires the presentation of a valid commercial invoice, and recital 607 of that regulation, according to which the presentation of such an invoice should not be the only item that the customs authorities should take into consideration. 19 In those circumstances the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (District Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In the circumstances of the main proceedings, must Article 1(3) of [Implementing Regulation 2022/191] be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, an importer may present a valid invoice raised retrospectively, after the customs declaration has been made? (2) Must Article 1(3) of [Implementing Regulation 2022/191], read in conjunction with recital 607 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the presentation of an appropriate invoice may not in itself serve as a basis for the application of an individual duty rate?’ Consideration of the questions referred The first question 20 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, that provision allows an importer to present, after the customs declaration has been made, a valid commercial invoice complying with the requirements thereof, drawn up retrospectively. 21 According to settled case-law, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (the judgment in Tigers, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). 22 As regards the wording of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, that wording provides that the application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate is conditional upon presentation, to the customs authorities of the Member States, of a valid commercial invoice conforming to the requirements set out in that provision. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies not listed in that regulation applies. 23 It clearly follows from that wording that the presentation of a valid invoice, which complies with the requirements set out in that provision, is an indispensable condition for the application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate. By contrast, that wording provides no information whatsoever as to when that invoice must be presented. Therefore, it does not preclude an invoice, which meets all the requirements set out in that provision, from being presented to the customs authorities after the customs declaration has been made (see, by analogy, the judgment in Tigers, paragraphs 23 and 24). That wording also does not preclude such an invoice from being drawn up or corrected retrospectively. 24 As regards the context of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, it must be observed that that regulation does not contain any other provision specifying the point in time at which a valid commercial invoice must be presented to the customs authorities. 25 It should be noted, in that regard, that Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 provides that, unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties are to apply. Thus, in so far as that implementing regulation does not contain any indication to the contrary, the procedures for lodging and checking customs declarations for products subject to anti-dumping duties are governed by the Union Customs Code (see, by analogy, the judgment in Tigers, paragraph 27). 26 In that respect, it must be held that that code does not expressly state when a commercial invoice must be presented. 27 However, first, Article 173 of that code provides, in certain cases, for a procedure for applying for a retrospective amendment of a customs declaration. Paragraph 3 of that article provides that, upon application by the declarant, within three years of the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, the amendment of the customs declaration may be permitted after release of the goods ‘in order for the declarant to comply with his or her obligations relating to the placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned’. Accordingly, the declarant may submit new information and evidence in support of an application for amendment. 28 Secondly, it is apparent from Articles 46 and 48 of that code that the customs authorities may verify, inter alia, the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents. 29 It follows from those provisions of the Union Customs Code that it is permissible, in certain circumstances, to present new material which may be taken into account by the customs authorities, even after the customs declaration has been made, under the control of those authorities. There is nothing to indicate that the presentation of a valid commercial invoice, which complies with the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, is excluded (see, by analogy, the judgment in Tigers, paragraphs 31 and 32). 30 That conclusion is supported by the objectives pursued by that implementing regulation. 31 According to the wording of recital 606 of that implementing regulation, in order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. 32 That application is ensured where anti-dumping duties are fixed in the light of material the accuracy of which it has been possible to verify, if necessary by having recourse to Articles 46 and 48 of the Union Customs Code (see, by analogy, the judgment in Tigers, paragraph 35). 33 Consequently, having regard to the fact that Implementing Regulation 2022/191 pursues the objective of reducing the risks of circumvention by the proper application of anti-dumping duties, it must be regarded as allowing the importers concerned to present a valid commercial invoice or a corrected or new version of such an invoice, also after the customs declaration has been made (see, by analogy, the judgment in Tigers, paragraph 36). 34 Consequently, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, that provision allows an importer to present, after the customs declaration has been made, a valid commercial invoice complying with the requirements thereof, drawn up retrospectively. The second question 35 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, read in the light of recital 607 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presentation of a valid commercial invoice relating to goods subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate, duly drawn up and meeting the requirements of that provision, automatically justifies, on its own, the application of that rate. 36 As has been observed in paragraph 23 of the present judgment, first, it follows from the very wording of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 that the presentation of a valid invoice, which complies with the requirements set out in that provision, is an indispensable condition for the application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate. However, that wording does not contain any clarification as to whether the presentation of such an invoice constitutes a sufficient condition for the application of an individual rate. 37 As regards, secondly, the context of Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, it must be borne in mind that, as is apparent from paragraph 25 of the present judgment, that provision must be combined with the relevant provisions of the Union Customs Code. 38 In that regard, it should be noted, first of all, that Article 15(2) of the Union Customs Code requires declarants to provide, in their declaration, accurate and complete information. Next, as has already been held in paragraph 28 of the present judgment, it is apparent from Articles 46 and 48 of that code that the customs authorities may verify, inter alia, the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification, as well as the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents. Lastly, it follows from the finding in paragraph 27 of the present judgment that Article 173(3) of that code allows, in certain cases, the amendment of the customs declaration within a period of three years from the date of acceptance of that declaration. 39 However, the presentation of a valid commercial invoice, which complies with the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, cannot prevent the customs authorities from exercising their powers of control and verification. In those circumstances, it must be held that the production of such an invoice does not ipso facto lead to the application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate. 40 As regards, thirdly, the objectives of the legislation in the context of which Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191 occurs, it must be recalled, at the outset, that it is apparent, in essence, from recital 15 of the Union Customs Code that its objective is to combat fraud and that customs controls are inherent in the achievement of that objective (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 June 2023, Zes Zollner Electronic, C‑640/21, EU:C:2023:457, paragraphs 45 and 46). 41 That objective of combating fraud is also reflected, more specifically, in recitals 606 and 607 of Implementing Regulation 2022/191. Admittedly, it follows from the first of those recitals that it is necessary, in order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference between the different rates of anti-dumping duties, that companies claiming the application of an individual anti-dumping duty rate present a commercial invoice which complies with the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of that implementing regulation. However, it is apparent from the second of those recitals that the presentation of such an invoice is not the only factor which the customs authorities must take into account. Even if they are presented with an invoice meeting all those requirements, those authorities must carry out their usual checks by requiring, inter alia, the production of additional documents for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the information contained in the customs declaration and ensuring that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in accordance with customs legislation. 42 Any contrary interpretation, according to which the mere presentation of a valid invoice is sufficient, even if it contains false declarations, to render applicable an individual anti-dumping duty rate, would be such as to render ineffective those rules, which are necessary to combat fraud effectively, and to encourage the possibility of fraud, which is clearly contrary to the objectives of the customs legislation. 43 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the presentation of a valid commercial invoice, which complies with the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, is a necessary condition for determining the individual anti-dumping duty rate, but does not automatically guarantee the application of that rate. Even if they are presented with such an invoice, the customs authorities must, in accordance with the customs rules, be in a position to verify the accuracy of the information given in that invoice. 44 Therefore, the answer to the second question is that Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, read in the light of recital 607 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presentation of a valid commercial invoice relating to goods subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate, duly drawn up and meeting the requirements of that provision, does not, on its own, automatically justify the application of that rate. Costs 45 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, that provision allows an importer to present, after the customs declaration has been made, a valid commercial invoice complying with the requirements thereof, drawn up retrospectively. 2. Article 1(3) of Implementing Regulation 2022/191, read in the light of recital 607 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presentation of a valid commercial invoice relating to goods subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate, duly drawn up and meeting the requirements of that provision, does not, on its own, automatically justify the application of that rate. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Latvian.