CELEX: 62009CA0382
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-382/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Chapter 73 — Steel strands, ropes and cables — Heading 7312 — TARIC code — Error in the tariff classification — Release of goods for free circulation — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Anti-dumping duties — Fine of an amount equal to the total anti-dumping duties)

4.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 328/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Stils Met SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-382/09) (1)
   
   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 73 - Steel strands, ropes and cables - Heading 7312 - TARIC code - Error in the tariff classification - Release of goods for free circulation - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Anti-dumping duties - Fine of an amount equal to the total anti-dumping duties)
   2010/C 328/12
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākās Tiesas Senāts
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Stils Met SIA
   
      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senats — Interpretation of Chapter 73 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Stranded wire, ropes and cables, of steel, not coated or only plated or coated with zinc, whatever their chemical composition, in particular of alloy steel, not consigned from Moldova or Morocco — Classification under headings 7312108219, 7312108419 and 7312108619 of the Combined Nomenclature in 2004 and 2005 — National legislation providing for a penalty in a sum equal to that of the antidumping duty
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The Integrated Tariff of the European Communities established by Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version applying in 2004 and 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that ropes and cables of steel, other than stainless steel, not coated or only plated or coated with zinc, with a maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeding 3 mm but not exceeding 48 mm, not consigned either from Moldova or from Morocco, fall within TARIC codes 7312108219, 7312108419 or 7312108619, depending on their cross-sectional dimension;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the imposition, in the event of an error in the tariff classification of goods imported into the customs territory of the European Union, of a fine equal to the total amount of the anti-dumping duties applicable to those goods, provided that the conditions in accordance with which the amount of the fine is to be set are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.