CELEX: 62018CA0226
Language: en
Date: 2019-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-226/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Krohn & Schröder GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 212a — Import procedures — Customs debt — Exemption — Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China — Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing an anti-dumping duty and a countervailing duty — Exemptions)

29.7.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 255/13
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Krohn & Schröder GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
      (Case C-226/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 212a - Import procedures - Customs debt - Exemption - Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing an anti-dumping duty and a countervailing duty - Exemptions)
      (2019/C 255/16)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Finanzgericht Hamburg
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Krohn & Schröder GmbH
      
         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 212a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as applying to the exemptions from anti-dumping and countervailing duties provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and Article 2(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, when it applies to the incurrence of a customs debt pursuant to Article 204(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, for exceeding the time limit under Article 49(1) of that regulation, the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and in Article 2(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 are not fulfilled when the company which is affiliated with the company listed in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, and which manufactured, consigned and invoiced the goods concerned, did not act as the importer of those goods and did not ensure the release of the goods into free circulation, even if it had the intention to do so and was the company to which the goods were actually delivered.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.