CELEX: C2004/239/04
Language: en
Date: 2004-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam

25.9.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 239/3
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   (Case C-311/04)
   (2004/C 239/04)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal, Netherlands) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Additional Note (EC) 1 to Chapter 10 of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in so far as it lays down requirements in respect of the term ‘semi-milled rice’ that differ from those laid down in the Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it possible for an appellant to plead good faith pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code in a situation where the appellant was or ought to have been aware of Additional Note (EC) 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the CN but did not know or may at least have had doubts as to whether that note was valid in the light of the different description set out in the Custom Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.