CELEX: C2002/144/36
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: 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

15.6.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     a)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
                                                                                          and
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
      incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-                        b)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
      barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the                             acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
      respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance                             extracts of tea?
      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                 2)    Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
      entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that                    12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
      the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First                     goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
      Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the                   p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
      appellant had not been officially informed of his legal                       points 2 and 3 of the Annex?
      rights.
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-                (2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.
      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   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
    of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products               (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
    sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).                                            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 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                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               München                                        European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
                                                                              (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                              Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
                           (Case C-130/02)                                    Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
                           (2002/C 144/35)                                    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
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-                       tariff information where they change the position adopted in
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at                  it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling                  applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                        even where the change is made within the six-year period
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                        referred to?
München on the following questions:
1)    Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of                           establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
      6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation                       19.10.1992, p. 1.).
      (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