CELEX: 62012CN0180
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-180/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

30.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 194/11
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-180/12)
   2012/C 194/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad Sofia — grad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Stoilov i Ko EOOD
   
      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the article — rolled-up strips out of non-woven fabric for the production of interior blinds — to be assigned the NC Code 5407 61 30 depending on the characteristics of the article as ‘woven fabric’ or the NC Code 6303 92 10 corresponding to its single intended purpose — for interior blinds — for the purposes of the tariff classification according to the Combined Nomenclature 2009, which is formed by Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (1) of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, whereat the following is to be taken into consideration:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           the term ‘made-up article’ within the meaning of note 7 to Chapter 63 (‘Other made-up textile articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles; rags’) in Section XI (‘Textiles and textile articles’) of the Combined Nomenclature 2009, interpreted in conjunction with point 2(a) of [Section A] of the general rules of nomenclature concerning the terms ‘incomplete or unfinished article’ having regard to the case mentioned in point (c) of note 7, the characteristics of the article in question in the current proceedings and the possibility that a single end-product is produced from it;
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the question of whether the term ‘woven fabric’ according to Chapter 54, subheading 5407 61 30 of the Combined Nomenclature 2009 covers fabric strips, which, like the end-product forming their single intended purpose — interior blinds —, also comes with fixed edges on the long side and, to be more precise, in view of the express reference to that product in subheading 6303 92 10 of the nomenclature?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Does a reasonable ground exist for the assumption that a legitimate expectation with regard to the tariff classification of the article arose for the declarant and obligated party due to the importation of the article and that, according to Article 71(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and with regard to the basic principle of legitimate expectations, the customs tariff number of the article which is stated in the customs declaration is to be applied if, according to the facts of the case in the main proceedings at the time of the making of the customs declaration, the following circumstances were existent:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           With respect to a customs declaration which was made earlier of the same articles with the same customs tariff number, no samples were taken for analysis by the customs authorities after an examination of the articles recorded in a protocol, including an examination with regard to the tariff classification, and the conclusion was drawn that the articles were consistent with the information in the declaration;
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           no later examination took place after the allocation of the articles to five other customs declarations of the same articles with the same customs tariff number, which had also been made earlier, and, to be more precise, before and after the date of the protocol regarding the customs examination, in which it was established that the customs tariff number was correct?
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Is Article 243(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 with regard to the protection of the basic principle of legal effect to be interpreted as meaning that an appeal can only be lodged against the act according to Article 232(1)(a) of that regulation, if that act was issued due to a payment which was not made within the period prescribed, by means of which the amount of the import duty levied is established at the same time and it constitutes an enforcement order for the collection of duties according to the national law of the Member State?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Are Articles 41(2)(a) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for the gathering of evidence by means of an independent expert’s report, which was requested by the obligated party after its briefing in accordance with Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, was not expressly acknowledged by a customs authority and was not discussed in the grounds for later decisions, an unrecoverable infringement of the right to good administration and the right to a defence in administrative proceedings occurs, which can no longer be remedied in the court proceedings because the person concerned in the circumstances of the main proceedings only has the chance to prove his objections regarding the tariff classification of the article in the proceedings before the first-instance court by posing questions to the independent expert?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.