Case C-115/25, Stappert Magyarország: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 February 2025 – Stappert Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Adó-és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2025-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plate, steel, tariff exemption, tariff quota








C_202501882EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1882


7.4.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 February 2025 – Stappert Magyarország Kft. v Nemzeti Adó-és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága


(Case C-115/25, Stappert Magyarország)

(C/2025/1882)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Stappert Magyarország Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó-és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Must the term ‘relevant’, used in Article 1(6) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 (1) of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (‘Implementing Regulation 2019/159’), be interpreted, with regard to the particular product categories with a specific CN code mentioned in Article 1(1) of that regulation, as referring to all of the order numbers (tariff-rate quota) open for each period or only to the order number (tariff-rate quota) in relation to which the importer has submitted a tariff-rate quota request?










2.


Must the expression ‘where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable’ in Article 2(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Implementing Regulation 2021/1483’) be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the additional duty of 25 % becomes applicable because the ‘relevant’ tariff-rate quota has been exhausted or as also referring to situations in which the additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as, for example, the failure to submit a request?










3.


Must Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 be interpreted as meaning that the collection of the anti-dumping duty of 6.8 % is suspended only as a consequence of the application of the additional duty of 25 % on account of the relevant tariff-rate quota having been exhausted or is it also suspended when the additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as, for example, the failure to submit a request?










4.


Must Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 and Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of the latter regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the additional duty and the anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed together, even in the case where, on the date on which the open tariff-rate quota with a particular order number was exhausted, the Commission opened a new tariff-rate quota with a different order number for products with the same CN code and the importer only requested the preferential customs procedure in relation to the exhausted tariff-rate quota?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ 2019 L 31, p. 27).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1882/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)