EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/9

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-175/12) (1)

(Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Preferential arrangement for the import of products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States - Articles 16 and 32 of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement - Import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the European Union - Irregularities in the movement certificate EUR.1 established by the competent authorities of the State of export - Stamp not matching the specimen notified to the Commission - Post-clearance and replacement certificates - Community Customs Code - Articles 220 and 236 - Possibility of retrospective application of a preferential customs duty no longer in effect on the date when the request for repayment is made - Conditions)

2013/C 367/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sandler AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the second indent of Article 889(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007 (OJ 2007 L 62, p. 6), and Articles 16 and 32 of Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3) — Import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the European Union — Whether possible to apply a posteriori a preferential customs tariff no longer in force when the request for repayment is made — Situation in which the goods were imported when that preferential tariff was still in force but its application was refused because of a stamp not complying with the specimen notified to the Commission on the EUR.1 goods movement certificate

Operative part of the judgment

1. The second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 889(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended most recently by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a request for repayment of customs duties where preferential customs treatment was requested and granted at the time the goods were placed in free circulation and it was only subsequently, in the course of a post-clearance examination after the expiry of the preferential customs arrangement and the re-establishment of the customs duties normally due, that the authorities of the State of import recovered the difference between that and the customs duty applicable to goods originating from a non-member country.

2. Articles 16(1)(b) and 32 of Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, and approved in behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2003/159/EC of 19 December 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that if it transpires in a post-clearance examination that a stamp not matching the specimen notified by the authorities of the State of export was affixed to the EUR.1 certificate, the customs authorities of the State of import may refuse that certificate and return it to the importer in order to allow him to obtain a certificate issued retrospectively pursuant to Article 16(1)(b) of Protocol No 1 rather than triggering the procedure provided for in Article 32 of that protocol.

3. Articles 16(4) and (5) and 32 of Protocol No 1 must be interpreted as precluding the authorities of a State of import from refusing to accept, as a EUR.1 certificate issued retrospectively within the meaning of Article 16(1) of that protocol, a EUR.1 certificate which, whilst complying in all other respects with the requirements of the provisions of that protocol, does not contain, in the ‘Remarks’ box, the wording specified by Article 16(4) of Protocol No 1, but an indication to the effect that the EUR.1 certificate was issued pursuant to Article 16(1) of that protocol. In cases of doubt as to the authenticity of that document or the originating status of the products concerned, those authorities are required to initiate the control procedure provided for in Article 32 of that protocol.

(1) OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.