Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom, Finanzgericht München — Germany) — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Puma SE v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 — WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7) — Determination of dumping — Imports from non market economy countries — Claims for market economy treatment — Time limit — Article 9(5) and (6) — Claims for individual treatment — Article 17 — Sampling — Article 3(1), (5) and (6), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) — Cooperation of the Union industry — Article 3(2) and (7) — Determination of injury — Other known factors — Community Customs Code — Article 236(1) and (2) — Repayment of duties not legally owed — Time limit — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Invalidity of a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties)
Date: 2016-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Macao, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, footwear industry, import (EU), originating product








C_2016106EN.01000201.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/2





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom, Finanzgericht München — Germany) — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Puma SE v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14)
(Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 - WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7) - Determination of dumping - Imports from non market economy countries - Claims for market economy treatment - Time limit - Article 9(5) and (6) - Claims for individual treatment - Article 17 - Sampling - Article 3(1), (5) and (6), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) - Cooperation of the Union industry - Article 3(2) and (7) - Determination of injury - Other known factors - Community Customs Code - Article 236(1) and (2) - Repayment of duties not legally owed - Time limit - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Invalidity of a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties))
(2016/C 106/02)
Languages of the case: English and German

Referring courts

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant/applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (C-659/13), Puma SE (C-34/14)

Respondent/defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam is invalid in so far as it infringes Article 2(7)(b) and Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004.
Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 1472/2006 in the light of Article 296 TFEU and Article 2(7)(c), Article 3(1), (2) and (5) to (7), Article 4(1), Article 5(4), Article 9(6) and Article 17 of Regulation No 384/96 as amended by Regulation No 461/2004, considered in isolation in the case of some of those articles or provisions and jointly in the case of others.










2.


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is invalid to the same extent as Regulation No 1472/2006.










3.


In a situation such as that at issue in the main actions, the courts of the Member States may not rely on judgments in which the judicature of the European Union annulled a regulation that had imposed anti-dumping duties, in so far as it related to certain exporting producers covered by it, in order to hold that the duties imposed on the products of other exporting producers covered by that regulation, and in the same situation as the exporting producers in respect of which the regulation was annulled, are not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. As such a regulation has not been withdrawn by the institution of the European Union which adopted it, annulled by the judicature of the European Union or declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union in so far as it imposes duties on the products of those other exporting producers, those duties remain legally owed within the meaning of that provision.










4.


Article 236(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties is declared invalid in whole or in part by the judicature of the European Union does not constitute unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.