Case C-133/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs regulations, customs tariff, interpretation of the law, preliminary issue

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

— In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-
barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the
respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance
that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
pending before the Court — they would make him a
binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not
entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that
the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First
Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the
appellant had not been officially informed of his legal
rights.

— In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-
ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
proceedings.

(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c
of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort
München

(Case C-130/02)

(2002/C 144/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort
München on the following questions:

1)

Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of
6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of

a)

b)

64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
and

64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
extracts of tea?

2)

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
points 2 and 3 of the Annex?

(1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
against head of the Roosendaal Customs district

(Case C-133/02)

(2002/C 144/36)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of
the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:

Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii)
thereof, provide the
customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
tariff information where they change the position adopted in
it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
even where the change is made within the six-year period
referred to?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
19.10.1992, p. 1.).