CELEX: 62007CC0375
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-04 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 4 September 2008.#Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands.#Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of a classification regulation - Interpretation of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 - Articles 220 and 239 of the Customs Code - Articles 871 and 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Dried sheets consisting of rice flour, salt and water - Tariff classification - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Procedure for remission - Detectable error on the part of the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the importer.#Case C-375/07.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      TRSTENJAK
      delivered on 4 September 2008 1(1)
      
      Case C‑375/07
      Staatssecretaris van Financiën
      v
      Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands))
      (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Articles 220 and 239 – Post-clearance recovery of duties – Subsequent entry in the accounts – Remission of import duties – Grounds of fairness – Parallel proceedings before national courts and Community Courts – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Interpretation and validity of Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 – Rice paper)I –  Introduction
      1.        This reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) has been made
         in proceedings between the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (State Secretary for Finance) and Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods
         Trading BV (‘Heuschen & Schrouff’) concerning post-clearance recovery of import duties.
      
      2.        The reference concerns, on the one hand, the tariff classification of a product described as ‘rice paper’ and the validity
         of a Commission regulation laying down rules for the customs classification of that product.
      
      3.        On the other hand, concurrently with this reference for a preliminary ruling, a second case is pending before the Court of
         Justice which concerns the same imports of rice paper by Heuschen & Schrouff and their treatment for customs purposes. Heuschen
         & Schrouff is seeking to have Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 annulled. The judgment of the Court of First
         Instance in that case, delivered on 30 November 2006, (2) is at present the subject of an appeal under case number C‑38/07 P. (3)
      
      4.        In connection with those proceedings concurrently pending between Heuschen & Schrouff and the Commission, the Hoge Raad der
         Nederlanden submits a number of questions concerning the jurisdiction of national courts in parallel proceedings concurrently
         pending at national level and Community level, and as to what arrangements guarantee the uniform application of Community
         law in such a situation. 
      
      II –  Legal framework
      A –    Community law
      1.      Provisions on customs classification
      5.        The Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’), established in 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, (4) is based on the international Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) drawn up by the Customs Cooperation
         Council, now the World Customs Organisation, established by the International Convention concluded at Brussels on 14 June
         1983 and approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987. (5) The CN reproduces the headings and subheadings of the HS to six digits, with the seventh and eighth figures creating subheadings
         which are unique to it. (6)
      
      6.        Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2658/87 authorises the Commission of the European Communities, assisted by a committee of representatives
         of the Member States, to adopt measures relating to the classification of goods in the CN in accordance with the procedure
         defined in Article 10 of Regulation No 2658/87.
      
      7.        The general rules for the interpretation of the CN, which are found in Part One, Section I(A), of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87,
         state, inter alia:
      
      ‘Classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature shall be governed by the following principles:
      1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification
         shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings
         or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.
      
      …
      3. When ... goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:
      (a)      the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.
         ...
      
      …’
      8.        Part Two, Section IV, Chapter 19, of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 covers the CN codes for ‘Preparations of cereals, flour,
         starch or milk; pastrycooks’ products’.
      
      9.        CN heading 1901 covers ‘Malt extract; food preparations of flour, groats, meal, starch or malt extract, not containing cocoa
         or containing less than … of cocoa …; food preparations of goods of headings 0401 to 0404 [(7)] …’, including CN subheading 1901 90 99, with the description ‘Other’.
      
      10.      CN heading 1905 relates to ‘Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers’ wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion
         wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products: ...’, including,
         in CN subheading 1905 90 (‘Other’), the further CN subheading 1905 90 20 (‘Communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable
         for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products’).
      
      11.      According to point 1 of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of
         certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (8) (that regulation is based on the abovementioned Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87), goods of the following description are
         to be classified under CN subheading 1905 90 20:
      
      ‘Food preparation, in the form of dry, translucent sheets, of different sizes, made from rice flour, salt and water. 
      These sheets are, after being soaked in water to make them pliable, generally used to make the “wrappers” for spring rolls
         and similar products.’
      
      12.      Point 1 of the annex to Regulation No 1196/97 contains the following reasons for that classification:
      
      ‘Classification is determined by General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and by the wording
         of CN codes 1905, 1905 90 and 1905 90 20.’
      
      2.       Provisions on waiver of entry in the accounts and/or remission/repayment on grounds of fairness, and on the relevant procedural
         powers of national authorities and Community authorities 
      
      13.      Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9) (‘the Customs Code’) contains provisions on subsequent entry in the accounts of the amount of a customs debt for cases where
         the amount of duty resulting from a customs debt has either not been entered in the accounts or has been entered in the accounts
         at a level lower than the amount legally owed.
      
      14.      In that regard, Article 220(2) of the Customs Code provides, inter alia, as follows: 
      
      ‘… subsequent entry in the accounts shall not occur where:
      …
      (b)      the amount of duty legally owed failed to be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of the customs authorities
         which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his part having acted in good
         faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the customs declaration;
      
      …’
      15.      With regard to a possible remission of import duties or export duties in special situations, the second indent of Article
         239(1) of the Customs Code states:
      
      ‘Import duties or export duties may be … remitted in situations … resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious
         negligence may be attributed to the person concerned. …’
      
      16.      The administrative procedure in relation to decisions applying Article 220(2)(b) and the second indent of Article 239(1) of
         the Customs Code is laid down in the chapter headed ‘Recovery of the amount of the customs debt’ of Commission Regulation
         (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, (10) which has been amended many times. In its third question submitted for a preliminary ruling, (11) the national court refers to Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998; (12)(13) it made changes to the division of competence between the national customs authorities and the Commission with regard to
         the administrative procedures concerned here. A major redrafting of the provisions on the division of competence between the
         national customs authorities and the Commission took place later, with effect from 1 August 2003, with the amendment of Regulation
         No 2454/93 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1335/2003 of 25 July 2003. (14) Since both the version before and the version after the 2003 legislative amendment may be of relevance in this case, both
         will be examined here, depending on whose decision is involved and at what point in time.
      
      17.      In relation to decisions applying Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, the administrative procedure is laid down in Articles
         869 to 876(a) of Regulation No 2454/93 and, in relation to decisions applying the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs
         Code, in Articles 899 and 905 et seq. of Regulation No 2454/93.
      
      18.      It is true both of the legal situation up to 31 July 2003 and of the legal situation after 1 August 2003 (15) that, in the case of decisions applying Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code and decisions applying the second indent of
         Article 239(1) of that code, the national customs authorities themselves always decide in any event when they do not consider
         that the conditions laid down in those provisions are fulfilled. (16)
      
      19.      In so far as the national customs authorities wish to take a decision favourable to the debtor, certain rules on the division
         of competence between the national customs authorities and the Commission apply both to the administrative procedure in relation
         to decisions applying Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code and to the administrative procedure in relation to decisions applying
         the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code. The version of Regulation No 2454/93 referred to by the national
         court in the third question referred for a preliminary ruling, that is, that governing the legal situation up to 31 July 2003,
         was at the time characterised by a threshold amount of EUR 50 000, above which the case had to be transmitted to the Commission
         for a decision if a favourable decision was to be expected. Below that threshold value, there were possibilities of transmission,
         for example, in cases of doubt. By contrast, in respect of the legal situation as from 1 August 2003, a threshold value of
         EUR 500 000 applies and there is also, in other respects, a significant transfer of the decision-making practice to the national
         customs authorities. (17) Transmission to the Commission is now possible for only a few categories of cases.
      
      20.      Article 869 of Regulation No 2454/93, which is referred to by the national court, provided, in the version in force up to
         31 July 2003:
      
      ‘The customs authorities shall themselves decide not to enter uncollected duties in the accounts:
      …
      (b)      in cases in which they consider that the conditions laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of the Code are fulfilled, provided that
         the amount not collected from the operator concerned in respect of one or more import or export operations but in consequence
         of a single error is less than [EUR] 50 000;
      
      …’
      21.      The first paragraph of Article 871 of Regulation No 2454/93, to which the national court also refers, provided, in the version
         in force up to 31 July 2003:
      
      ‘In cases other than those referred to in Article 869, where the customs authorities either consider that the conditions laid
         down in Article 220(2)(b) of the Code are fulfilled or are in doubt as to the precise scope of the criteria of that provision
         with regard to a particular case, those authorities shall submit the case to the Commission, so that a decision may be taken
         in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 872 to 876. …’
      
      B –    National law
      22.      Article 8:72(4) of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht (General Law on Administrative Law) provides:
      
      ‘If the court declares the appeal well founded, it may order the administrative authority to adopt a new decision or carry
         out a different measure in compliance with its judgment, or it may rule that its judgment takes the place of the annulled
         decision or the annulled part thereof.’
      
      III –  Facts in the main proceedings and questions referred for a preliminary ruling
      23.      Heuschen & Schrouff, an importer of foodstuffs and food ingredients, has imported rice paper from Vietnam for many years.
      
      24.      In 1996 and the following years, the customs agent acting on behalf of Heuschen & Schrouff declared imported rice paper under
         CN subheading 1901 90 99 for purposes of release into free circulation. The competent national customs authorities accepted
         the declarations each time, even after a random sample taken on the occasion of one declaration, with a view to its customs
         classification, had been analysed. (18)
      
      25.      On 16 March 1998, in connection with a declaration for release into free circulation of 14 January 1998, the competent customs
         authority in Rotterdam classified the rice paper, after inspection, under CN subheading 1905 90 20. (19)
      
      26.      By assessment notices of 22 November 2000, Heuschen & Schrouff was requested to pay customs duties amounting in total to NLG
         645 399.50 (EUR 292 869.52 (20)) on all imports of rice paper effected over the period from 13 November 1997 to 31 December 1998. Referring to Regulation
         No 1196/97, the customs authority stated by way of explanation that the CN subheading 1901 90 99 indicated on the declarations
         was incorrect and that a revision of the assessment notices concerned would for that reason be necessary.
      
      27.      In response to the objection lodged by Heuschen & Schrouff, the demands for payment were confirmed by ruling of the Customs
         and Excise Inspector of 9 March 2001, with the exception of a demand for payment in the amount of NLG 13 650.30 (EUR 6 194.24 (21)) relating to a customs declaration of 16 March 1998, which was annulled. (22)
      
      28.      On 29 March 2001, Heuschen & Schrouff appealed to the Tariefcommissie (Customs and Excise Tribunal), now the Douanekamer (Customs
         Chamber) of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal; ‘the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam’) against the
         ruling by which the Inspector had rejected its objection.
      
      29.      The hearing before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam was held on 17 December 2002.
      
      30.      In the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004, the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam found, as regards the characteristics of rice paper,
         that the product in question consists of the ingredients rice flour, water and salt. Those three ingredients are blended and
         kneaded to make a dough, from which small pats are formed. These pats are rolled out into circular, transparent sheets, which
         are then dried. As such, the product is not suitable for direct consumption but must first be subjected to heat treatment
         in order to render it edible.
      
      31.      The Gerechtshof te Amsterdam held that, for purposes of customs tariff classification, the product in question had to be classified
         under CN subheading 1905 90 20. Pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, subsequent entry of the import duties in
         the accounts should be waived, because Heuschen & Schrouff had acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions applicable
         to the customs declaration. The Gerechtshof te Amsterdam ruled that the appeal was well founded and set aside both the Inspector’s
         ruling and the demands for payment. 
      
      32.      In parallel with the proceedings brought before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Heuschen & Schrouff applied to the national
         customs authority, on 13 September 2002, (23) for remission of the customs debt in question pursuant to Article 239(1) of the Customs Code. That application was transmitted
         on 19 September 2002 to the Commission of the European Communities, which rejected it by decision of 17 June 2004 on the ground
         that, although a special situation as referred to in Article 239 of the Customs Code existed, Heuschen & Schrouff had nevertheless
         acted with obvious negligence. 
      
      33.      At the time when the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam was delivered on 7 December 2004, an action brought on 23 September
         2004 against that Commission decision was pending before the Court of First Instance. That action was dismissed by judgment
         of 30 November 2006, against which an appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice. (24)
      
      34.      In the course of the proceedings in cassation against the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,
         by order of 13 July 2007, referred to the Court of Justice the questions to be examined here:
      
      ‘(1)      Do sheets as described in the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 come under heading 1905 of the Combined Nomenclature
         if they are prepared from rice flour, salt and water and then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment? 
      
      (2)      In the light of the answer to Question 1, is Regulation No 1196/97 valid?
      (3)      Must Article 871 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998 …, be construed
         as meaning that if, under the first paragraph of Article 871 thereof, there is an obligation on the customs authority to transmit
         a case to the Commission before it can decide to dispense with post-clearance recovery in that case, a national court ruling
         on an appeal by a tax debtor against the decision of the customs authority to proceed (in fact) with post-clearance recovery
         does not have the power to set aside that post-clearance recovery on the ground of its finding that the conditions laid down
         in Article 220(2)(b) [of the Customs Code] for (mandatorily) setting aside post-clearance recovery are satisfied, where that
         finding is not supported by the Commission?
      
      (4)      If the answer to Question 3 should be that the fact that the Commission has the power to take a decision in regard to demands
         for post-clearance recovery of customs duties does not involve any limitation on the jurisdiction of national courts which
         are called on to rule in an appeal concerning a demand for post-clearance recovery of customs duties, does Community law contain
         any separate provision which guarantees uniform application of Community law in the specific case where there is a discrepancy
         between the views of the Commission and those of the national court concerning the criteria to be applied in the context of
         Article 220 of the Customs Code for the purpose of determining whether a mistake on the part of the customs authority could
         have been detected by a tax debtor?’
      
      35.      Referring to the findings of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam concerning the characteristics of rice paper, the Hoge Raad der
         Nederlanden points out, with regard to both its first and second questions, that there are two very different interpretations
         as to which characteristic of a product such as rice paper is determinant for the purpose of classification under CN codes
         1901 and 1905. Doubts as regards classification under CN heading 1905 have arisen, in particular, by reason of the judgment
         in Uelzena Milchwerke. (25) If CN heading 1905 is incorrect, the question arises as to whether Regulation No 1196/97 is valid.
      
      36.      The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden asks the third and fourth questions with a view to uniform application of Community law, in
         this instance Article 220(2) and the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, and in view of the danger posed
         by divergent decisions in parallel proceedings before the Commission and the Community Courts, on the one hand, and the national
         customs authorities and the national courts, on the other.
      
      37.      That is because, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, (26) in assessing whether the person liable for payment has shown obvious negligence within the meaning of the second indent of
         Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, the same criteria apply as are applicable in the context of Article 220 of the Customs
         Code in determining whether there has been an error on the part of the customs authorities which could not have been detected
         by the person liable for payment.
      
      38.      In this connection, the third question specifically seeks to ascertain whether a court whose judgment is open to challenge
         by appeal or appeal in cassation and which makes no reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice is entitled
         to deliver a judgment which, bypassing the Commission, overrules the demand for post-clearance recovery, or whether it is
         at best entitled to deliver a judgment which sets aside the national customs authority’s decision, which is inherent in the
         decision to demand post-clearance recovery, not to transmit the case to the Commission.
      
      39.      On 22 May 2008, after the conclusion of the written procedure, a hearing was held, in which Heuschen & Schrouff, the Commission,
         the Netherlands Government, the Greek Government and the Italian Government took part. No new aspects arose at the hearing.
      
      IV –  Legal assessment
      A –    Customs classification of rice paper
      40.      The national court’s first question concerns the criteria (27) for the correct classification of rice paper in the CN. With regard to CN codes 1901 and 1905, the question arises as to
         the relevant product characteristic for purposes of classification. In formulating its question, the national court particularly
         emphasises the aspect of the lack of heat treatment with regard to CN heading 1905. The second question, regarding the validity
         of Regulation No 1196/97, follows on from the answer to the first question.
      
      41.      Before dealing with the classification principles relating to the CN, the product to be classified must first be considered
         in more detail: Asian rice paper in edible form (28) is used as (edible) packaging for foodstuffs. As the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam established, the product in question is prepared
         from the ingredients rice flour, water and salt. After those ingredients have been blended and kneaded, small pats are made,
         which are rolled out into circular, translucent sheets which are then dried. The Gerechtshof te Amsterdam further pointed
         out that, as such, the product is not suitable for direct consumption, but must first be subjected to heat treatment. It should
         be added that, before any further use, including heat treatment, the wafer-thin sheets of rice paper must be soaked in water.
         Together with their filling they are baked, fried or deep-fried (as spring rolls, for example), although, depending on the
         recipe, they can obviously also be consumed unbaked as small filled rolls with their contents.
      
      42.      On the basis of point 1 of the general rules for the interpretation of the CN, (29) classification is governed in particular by the wording of the headings and subheadings of the CN. (30) It is settled case-law of the Court that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion
         for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties
         as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the notes to the sections or chapters. (31)
      
      43.      The national court is correct in observing that it cannot be expressly inferred as a characteristic from the wording of CN
         heading 1905 that the products listed there are baked. It is true that, as the first group of products, ‘Bread, pastry, cakes,
         biscuits and other bakers’ wares, whether or not containing cocoa’ come under that heading. However, they are followed, separated
         clearly by a semicolon, by a further group of products, the list of which contains no verbatim reference to the characteristic
         of ‘having been baked’: ‘communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper
         and similar products’. This group of products is expressly assigned to CN subheading 1905 90 20 with precisely that wording.
         There is no literal mention whatsoever of ‘having been baked’. Common features which frequently occur in that subheading are,
         rather, the fact that the products are in the form of sheets and their dry state, which results from a variety of methods
         (drying with or without heat treatment).
      
      44.      That is, moreover, confirmed by various language versions of the provision. (32) Some versions, although not the Dutch, (33) expressly mention ‘dried’ products and in fact even ‘dried sheets of dough prepared from flour’. (34) That applies to the product to be classified in the present case. Some versions, such as the English and Slovenian, for example,
         even use explicitly the term ‘rice paper’. (35)
      
      45.      The previous finding of classification under CN subheading 1905 90 20 is not precluded by the judgment in Uelzena Milchwerke. (36) It is true that, in its observations in the present proceedings, Heuschen & Schrouff has emphasised, with reference to that
         judgment, that the aspect of ‘having been baked’ is a condition which must necessarily be fulfilled with regard to CN heading
         1905. However, that view can be countered by pointing out that the judgment in Uelzena Milchwerke concerns only the first group of products of CN heading 1905, the characteristics and properties of which are given as ‘Bread,
         pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers’ wares, whether or not containing cocoa’. Uelzena Milchwerke specifically concerns CN subheading 1905 30, ‘… biscuits …’. Since, therefore, that judgment does not concern the group of
         products ‘communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar
         products’, it cannot contribute to the interpretation sought in the present context.
      
      46.      A comparative glance at the descriptions of goods coming under CN heading 1901 shows, moreover, that their wording and, in
         particular, that of CN subheading 1901 90 99 (‘Other’), regarded by Heuschen & Schrouff as being correct, contain no indications
         whatsoever which could constitute a more specific description for the purposes of point 3(a) of the general rules for the
         interpretation of the CN. (37)
      
      47.      In my view, in this clear-cut situation of classification according to the wording of the CN code, it is no longer of decisive
         importance to refer to the World Customs Organisation’s Explanatory Notes (38) mentioned by Heuschen & Schrouff. (39)
      
      48.      Consequently, the national court’s first question must be answered in the affirmative, as is also proposed, moreover, by the
         Governments of the Netherlands, Greece and Italy as well as the Commission. Accordingly, sheets of the type described in the
         annex to Regulation No 1196/97 should be classified under CN heading 1905, and specifically under CN subheading 1905 90 20,
         if they are sheets prepared from rice flour, salt and water, which have been dried but have not undergone any heat treatment.
      
      49.      Since, in the light of the above, the classification of rice paper according to Regulation No 1196/97 corresponds to how that
         product should be classified according to the wording of the CN, there can be no doubt as to the validity of Regulation No 1196/97.
      
      B –    Waiver of entry in the accounts and/or remission/repayment on grounds of fairness and the relevant procedural powers of national
            authorities and Community authorities
      50.      By the third and fourth questions, the national court seeks to ascertain what arrangements can be made to ensure that Article
         220(2) and the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code are applied uniformly where, in a situation such as the
         present, the decision is taken by a court whose judgment is open to challenge by an appeal or an appeal in cassation.
      
      51.      In order to be able to answer those questions, it is first necessary to clarify whether, in regard to Article 220(2) and the
         second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, both of which contain provisions applicable on grounds of fairness, there
         is a need for uniform interpretation and application. The answer to that should be in the affirmative if the criteria to be
         applied in each case are fully or at least partly identical.
      
      52.      To that end, it must first be observed, with regard to the positioning of the two provisions concerned here, that they apply
         at different points in time. Both form part of Title VII of the Customs Code, ‘Customs debt’, but are in different chapters
         within it. Article 220(2) forms part of Chapter 3, ‘Recovery of the amount of the customs debt’. That chapter covers the principle
         of entry in the accounts, that is, the calculation and entry ‘in the accounting records’ of amounts of duty, (40) and questions of detail touching on that process, such as, for example, with Article 220, subsequent entry in the accounts,
         that is, cases in which no entry has been made initially. At that point in time, there is a question, in the context of Article
         220(2) of the Customs Code, of possible waiver, on grounds of fairness, of subsequent entry in the accounts. The second indent
         of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, on the other hand, forms part of Chapter 5, ‘Repayment and remission of duty’. The
         point in time for this lies after entry or subsequent entry. The second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code contains one of several options for the
         adjustment, by way of repayment or remission, of amounts of duty already entered in the accounts. The provision contains a
         general equitable clause (41) intended to cover the exceptional situation in which a declarant might find himself in comparison with other operators engaged
         in the same business. (42) That general clause applies, in particular, where, in view of the relationship between a declarant and the administration,
         it would be unfair to require the declarant to bear a loss which, in the proper course of events, he would not have incurred. (43)
      
      53.      Like Article 220(2) of the Customs Code, Article 239(1) of the same Code thus makes provision for grounds of equity. Both
         provisions pursue the same aim, (44) namely to limit the post-clearance payment of import and export duties to cases where such payment is justified and is compatible
         with a fundamental principle such as that of the protection of legitimate expectations. (45) They are thus bound up with considerations of fairness and, in particular, with the principle of the protection of legitimate
         expectations. They overlap in part (as will be explained below) but are not entirely coextensive, (46) resulting in a wider scope for Article 239(1) of the Customs Code as compared with Article 220(2) of the Customs Code.
      
      54.      The case-law has already ruled on the question of the identity of certain criteria of Article 220(2) and the second indent
         of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code. (47) In Hewlett Packard France, (48)Söhl & Söhlke (49) and Netherlands v Commission, (50) the Court expressly stated that the criteria used in the context of Article 220 of the Customs Code to ascertain whether
         an error made by the customs authority was detectable by a trader are to be applied by analogy to the concept of ‘obvious
         negligence’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, to which the present case relates.
      
      55.      Since, therefore, the criteria concerned here display a high degree of identity, but the relevant decisions are not in any
         case in the same hands, the uniform application of Community law may be jeopardised in cases of parallel proceedings such
         as those at issue here.
      
      56.      To ensure the uniform application of the common elements of the two provisions concerned here and avoid the danger of divergent
         decisions which lies in parallel proceedings before the Commission and the Community Courts, on the one hand, and the national
         customs authorities and courts, on the other, the existing case-law of the Court of Justice already provides substantial guidelines.
         Like the Greek Government, I would cite in that regard the judgments concerning customs law in Deutsche Fernsprecher, (51)Mecanarte, (52)Faroe Seafood and Others (53) and Conseil général de la Vienne, (54) which, although not delivered in regard to situations involving parallel proceedings, nevertheless concern the division of
         competence between the national authorities and the Commission in relation to the post-clearance recovery of duties. Based
         on the guidelines laid down by those judgments, some transferable principles can be derived from the competition law judgment
         in Masterfoods and HB, (55) which concerned parallel proceedings before national courts and the Community Courts; indeed, the Netherlands Government
         has also drawn attention to this. In my view, the abovementioned strands of case-law point in the same direction.
      
      57.      In paragraph 33 of the Mecanarte judgment, as it had already done previously in Deutsche Fernsprecher, the Court emphasised in clear terms, in regard to the division of competence between the national authorities and the Commission
         in relation to the post-clearance recovery of import duties and export duties, that, in a situation such as this, it is possible
         for ‘the uniformity of Community law to be ensured by the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure’. If,
         therefore, the person concerned challenges the post-clearance recovery decision before the national courts, regard must then
         be had to the need to ensure the uniform application of Community law, at least by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling.
      
      58.      In the situation which formed the basis of the Mecanarte judgment, there was no need, in the light of the questions referred in that case, to consider in more detail the aspects of
         those issues which arise here.
      
      59.      With regard to the situation to be examined in the present proceedings, in which it is also relevant, for example, whether
         a court which is not obliged to make a reference under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC and which does not wish to stay
         its corresponding proceedings and await a ruling may nevertheless, by way of exception, be under a duty to make a reference, (56) the Masterfoodsand HB judgment offers a continuation of the approach evident from the abovementioned judgments in Deutsche Fernsprecher, Mecanarte, Faroe Seafood and Others and Conseil général de la Vienne.
      
      60.      The situation underlying the Masterfoods and HB judgment (57) also concerned parallel proceedings before national courts and the Community Courts, albeit with regard to Articles 85 and
         86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC). A further contrast with the present situation, moreover, lies in the fact
         that, in Masterfoods and HB, the decision in the proceedings pending before the national court hinged on the validity of the Commission decision, whereas
         the point at issue in the present case is the identity of the assessment criteria.
      
      61.      In paragraph 51 of the Masterfoods and HB judgment, the Court held, with reference to paragraph 47 of the judgment in Delimitis, (58) regarding the application of Articles 85(1) and 86 and Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty, that national courts must, when ruling
         on agreements or practices which may subsequently be the subject of a decision by the Commission, avoid giving decisions which
         would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission.
      
      62.      The Court further held, in paragraph 52 of the Masterfoods and HB judgment, that, when national courts rule on agreements or practices which are already the subject of a Commission decision,
         they cannot take decisions running counter to that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a decision
         given by a national court of first instance.
      
      63.      In Masterfoods and HB, those findings of the Court were formulated in very general terms and not tailored specifically to situations governed by
         competition law. I can see no obstacles whatsoever to the transferability of those principles to the sphere of customs law,
         in which, as is the case here, there is a danger of non-uniform application and divergent decisions on identical points of
         law in parallel proceedings.
      
      64.      The answer given in Masterfoods and HB to the question of what a national court is to do in the event of a situation such as the present, which is characterised
         by parallelism, runs along two different lines: in order to avoid reaching a decision that runs counter to that of the Commission,
         it should stay its proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment by the Community Courts, unless it takes
         the view that, in the circumstances of the case, a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the validity
         of the Commission decision is warranted. (59)
      
      65.      That answer contains a clear preference for staying the proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment, but
         without precluding the preliminary ruling procedure. That preference for the overriding judgment in the action for annulment
         is very understandable with respect to situations such as this one, if the extremely different approaches which characterise
         the procedure in an action for annulment and the preliminary ruling procedure are borne in mind. (60)
      
      66.      On the other hand, it may also be very useful, where there are special reasons, as, for example, in a situation such as the
         present, not to wait, but to make a reference to the Court. That is because, in a situation such as here, the Commission decision
         concerns what is really the secondary question of the remission of import duties, which really ought to take second place
         to clarification of the fundamental question (post-clearance recovery of the import duties). To clarify that fundamental question,
         it was necessary, in the dispute concerned in this case, to analyse the correct customs classification of rice paper. (61) That may be a special reason for making a reference, although it is also conceivable that a ruling solely on that aspect
         could then be given at national level by means of an interlocutory judgment.
      
      67.      The finding that the Masterfoods and HB case-law is transferable is not precluded by judgments such as Sportgoods (62) and Sommer, (63) since they concern a different situation from that in the present case. In both those cases, the Court’s ruling, unlike in
         this case, concerned a situation in which the Commission decision did not contain any factual or legal indications relating
         to the legal basis for effecting post-clearance recovery of the import duties concerned under the regulation in issue; in
         that respect, the Commission decision was not such as to bind all the authorities, including the courts, of the State to which
         it was addressed. (64)
      
      68.      In the light of the above, there is, in my view, a need in situations, such as the present, which are characterised by parallel
         proceedings, for the national courts to have regard to the Commission’s decision-making competence, which finds its particular
         expression in the procedures laid down by Regulation No 2454/93.
      
      69.      In the case of a Commission decision which already exists, annulment of which has been sought in other proceedings, that respect
         can be ensured primarily by staying the proceedings before the national court pending final judgment in the action for annulment,
         which should be done right at the outset of the prescribed judicial sequence. As a further option in this situation, although
         more as a second resort, where special reasons preclude the primary option, there remains that of the reference for a preliminary
         ruling under Article 234 EC. (65)
      
      70.      In so far as the Commission’s decision is still pending, a special situation exists, as the Commission also emphasised in
         its observations. That aspect is now of a hypothetical nature, since it goes beyond the scope of the questions referred by
         the national court. However, since it is of advantage in reaching a decision also to bear in mind potential situations and
         to review the contemplated solution in the light of them, I propose to examine it briefly. I share the Commission’s view that
         respect for the Commission’s decision-making competence in such a situation would probably dictate that the national court
         should stay the proceedings pending adoption of that decision. (66) Otherwise there would be a danger that the judicial decision would anticipate the Commission’s decision, thus taking its
         place.
      
      71.      In order to safeguard in practice the type of cooperation between national and Community courts described above, it is necessary,
         in my view, for any national court dealing with such concurrent points of Community law to ascertain, by seeking information
         of its own motion, whether an application to be regarded as parallel has been submitted or may still timeously be submitted, (67) on which the Commission must decide, and what stage (decision, legal finality), if any, it has reached. (68)
      
      72.      One specific aspect of the third question referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden still remains to be examined. That question
         specifically seeks the interpretation of Article 871(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, which contains procedural requirements applicable
         to the national customs authorities. The background to that question, as may be gathered from the submissions of the Netherlands
         Government with reference to Article 8:72(4) of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht, is that, under that provision, the annulling
         judgment may give the Netherlands customs authorities directions and set them conditions for proceeding further. Such a condition
         could, for example, consist in the national customs authorities now being required to transmit the debtor’s application to
         the Commission, since a decision favourable to the debtor is considered a possibility.
      
      73.      That raises a further possible way for the national court to ensure a uniform interpretation of Article 220(2) and the second
         indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code, namely, by annulling the national customs authority’s decision without thereby
         taking a decision in the matter itself. It should be noted in that regard that, in so far as national procedural law contains
         such a possibility of annulling the national authority’s decision and referring the matter back to it on certain conditions,
         that also may be a manner of proceeding which is consistent with Community law, (69) so long as the Commission’s decision-making competence is respected.
      
      V –  Conclusion
      74.      On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer as follows the questions referred by the Hoge
         Raad der Nederlanden:
      
      (1)      Sheets as described in the annex to Regulation No 1196/97 come under heading 1905 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are
         prepared from rice flour, salt and water and then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment.
      
      (2)      In the light of the answer to the first question, Regulation No 1196/97 is valid.
      (3)      With a view to a uniform interpretation of Community law, national courts, irrespective of their position in the judicial
         hierarchy, must respect the Commission’s decision-making competence where criteria in the Customs Code are identical in substance.
         In order to avoid giving a decision which runs counter to the Commission’s decision in parallel proceedings concerning (partly)
         identical provisions, the national court should stay the proceedings pending final judgment by the Community Courts in the
         action for annulment, unless it forms the view that, in the circumstances of the case, a reference to the Court of Justice
         for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Commission decision is warranted. A further possibility would be to refer
         the matter back to the national customs authorities on condition that they transmit the case to the Commission by means of
         the procedure for administrative cooperation between the customs authorities and the Commission.
      
      1 –	Original language: German.
      
      2 –	Judgment of 30 November 2006 in Case T‑382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal FoodsTrading v Commission (not published in the ECR).
      
      3 –	See, in that regard, my Opinion of 4 September 2008 in Case C‑38/07 P Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal FoodsTrading v Commission [2008] ECR I‑0000.
      
      4 –	OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.
      
      5 –	OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1.
      
      6 –	See the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2658/87 (in particular the third recital), Articles 1 and 3 of that regulation
         and Joined Cases C‑208/06 and C‑209/06 Medion and Canon Deutschland [2007] ECR I‑7963, paragraph 3.
      
      7 –	Headings 0401 to 0404 cover goods such as milk, cream, whey and products obtained therefrom.
      
      8 –	OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13.
      
      9 –	OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
      
      10 –	OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
      
      11 –	See below, point 34 of this Opinion.
      
      12 –	OJ 1998 L 212, p. 18. This supplemented, for example, the administrative procedure in relation to decisions applying Article
         239(1) of the Customs Code by inserting the second subparagraph in Article 905(1).
      
      13 –	However, in the grounds of its judgment, the national court refers at one point to the ‘version in force on 1 August 2003’
         while citing a threshold value of EUR 50 000, which relates to the legal situation applicable up to 31 July 2003.
      
      14 –	OJ 2003 L 187, p. 16. According to Berr and Trémeau, Le droit douanier, Communautaire et national, 7th edition, 2006, p. 232, that major redrafting was undertaken in order, inter alia, to eliminate the disadvantages of
         the existing system of dual competence, to bring about a substantial easing of the Commission’s burden, and to restore the
         Member States’ responsibility for the management of own resources. See also, in that regard, recital 2 in the preamble to
         Regulation No 1335/2003, cited below in footnote 17.
      
      15 –	See above, point 16 of this Opinion, with regard to the date of the legislative amendment.
      
      16 –	With regard to former versions of the administrative procedures concerned here, the Court held, in Case C‑348/89 Mecanarte [1991] ECR I‑3277, paragraph 33, that the uniform application of Community law to be ensured is likely to be jeopardised
         in cases where an application to waive post-clearance recovery is allowed, since the assessment which a Member State may make
         in taking a favourable decision is likely, in actual fact, owing to the probable absence of any appeal, to escape any review
         by means of which the uniform application of the conditions laid down in the Community legislation may be ensured. On the
         other hand, that is not the case where the national authorities proceed to effect recovery, whatever the amount in issue.
         It is then open to the person concerned to challenge such a decision before the national courts. As a result, it will then
         be possible for the uniformity of Community law to be ensured by the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure.
      
      17 –	See, in that regard, recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble to Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1335/2003:
      
      	‘(1) Articles 220(2)(b) and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
         Code lay down that in certain cases import or export duties shall not be subsequently entered in the accounts or may be repaid
         or remitted for reasons of equity.
      
      	(2) Given that under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European
         Communities’ own resources … the Member States are primarily responsible for collecting traditional own resources, it should
         therefore primarily be up to the authorities of the Member States to decide whether or not import duties or export duties
         should be entered subsequently in the accounts under Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 or repaid or remitted
         under Article 239 of that Regulation.
      
      	(3) However, in order to ensure uniform treatment of traders and protect the financial interests of the Communities, the
         obligation to transmit dossiers to the Commission for a decision should remain where Member States consider that the decision
         should be favourable and either (a) an active error or failing on the part of the Commission is cited, or (b) the circumstances
         of the case are connected to Community investigations carried out under Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997
         on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the
         Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters …, or (c) the amount of duties
         involved is EUR 500 000 or more.
      
      	(4) However, there need be no such obligation to transmit the dossier if the Commission has already adopted a decision on
         a case comparable in fact and law, since Member States can then base their own final decision on the most recent Commission
         decision comparable in fact and law.’
      
      18 –	Judgment of 7 December 2004 of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Douanekamer, Case No 01/900096 DK, p. 2.
      
      19 –	The following is apparent from the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission, cited above in footnote 2, delivered in the parallel proceedings on an action for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002
         of 17 June 2004: after the adoption of Regulation No 1196/97, which was published on 28 June 1997 and entered into force on
         19 July 1997, Heuschen & Schrouff continued to import rice paper from Vietnam under CN subheading 1901 90 99, a practice which
         was accepted by the Netherlands customs authorities in respect of 29 declarations over a period of six months (with documentary
         inspection and, in one instance, physical inspection). On 16 March 1998, the Netherlands customs authorities pointed out that
         the declaration should be made with reference to CN subheading 1905 90 20. Later on the same day, however, the correctness
         of a declaration using CN subheading 1901 90 99 was confirmed by the same customs authorities. As from 17 March 1998, Heuschen
         & Schrouff used CN subheading 1905 90 20 for the importation of rice paper.
      
      20 –	See the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Douanekamer, cited above in footnote 18, pp. 1 and 3, and the judgment
         of the Court of First Instance in Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission, cited above in footnote 2, paragraph 12.
      
      21 –	See the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Douanekamer, cited above in footnote 18, p. 3.
      
      22 –	According to paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission, cited above in footnote 2, this eventually involved payment of NLG 636 518.40 (EUR 282 645.21).
      
      23 –	See, for the date, paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission, cited above in footnote 2.
      
      24 –	See above, point 3 of this Opinion.
      
      25 –	Case C-12/94 [1995] ECR I‑2397.
      
      26 –	Case C‑156/00 Netherlands v Commission [2003] ECR I‑2527.
      
      27 –	When the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the
         national court with guidance on the criteria which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the
         CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori since the Court does not necessarily have available to it
         all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event, the national court is in a better position to do so (Joined
         Cases C‑260/00 to C‑263/00 Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth [2002] ECR I‑10045, paragraph 26).
      
      28 –	Asian rice paper can be produced from, among other things, a variety of plant fibres, and in Japan and China, for example,
         is put to very varied uses, including in living rooms (for partition walls and lampshades, for example).
      
      29 –	See above, point 7 of this Opinion.
      
      30 –	Lyons, EC Customs Law, 2nd edition, 2008, p. 142, also draws attention to their particular significance.
      
      31 –	See, inter alia, Case C‑42/99 Eru Portuguesa [2000] ECR I‑7691, paragraph 13; Case C‑495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I‑8151, paragraph 47; and Medion and Canon Deutschland, cited above in footnote 6, paragraph 34.
      
      32 –	According to settled case-law, the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible for the
         text of a provision in one language version to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be
         interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (Case C‑48/98 Söhl & Söhlke [1999] ECR I‑7877, paragraph 46; see also, for settled case-law, Case C‑408/06 Götz [2007] ECR I‑11295, paragraph 29 with further references.
      
      33 –	The Dutch (‘dergelijke producten van meel of van zetmeel’), Danish (‘lignende varer af mel eller stivelse’) and Swedish
         (‘liknande produkter’) versions are worded less fully at the end of the list – with a more or less detailed reference to ‘similar
         products’ – than many of the other versions, which are also provided, between the reference to ‘sealing wafers’ and ‘similar
         products’, with the terms listed in the next footnote.
      
      34 –	This is the case with regard to, inter alia, the German (‘getrocknete Teigblätter aus Mehl oder Stärke’), French (‘pâtes
         séchées de farine, d’amidon ou de fécule en feuilles’), Spanish (‘pastas secas de harina, almidón o fécula, en hojas’) and
         Portuguese (‘pastas secas de farinha, amido ou fécula’) versions.
      
      35 –	Thus, ‘rice paper’ in the English version and ‘rižev papir’ in the Slovenian version.
      
      36 –	Cited above, footnote 25 to this Opinion.
      
      37 –	See above, point 7 of this Opinion.
      
      38 –	The Explanatory Notes were, moreover, also referred to by the national court, but with a different objective from that
         of Heuschen & Schrouff.
      
      39 –	The Explanatory Notes to the HS, drawn up within the World Customs Organisation, together with the Explanatory Notes to
         the CN formulated by the Commission, may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings
         but they do not have legally binding force (Case C‑467/03 Ikegami [2005] ECR I‑2389, paragraph 17).
      
      40 –	See in detail, regarding the principle of entry in the accounts, Article 217 of the Customs Code.
      
      41 –	See, inter alia, Case C‑230/06 Militzer & Münch [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 50.
      
      42 –	See, inter alia, Case C‑61/98 De Haan [1999] ECR I‑5003, paragraph 52, and Case C‑62/05 P Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio and Others v Commission [2007] ECR I‑8647, paragraph 41, regarding earlier versions of the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code and
         Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93.
      
      43 –	See my Opinion of 13 March 2008 in Case C‑204/07 P CAS v Commission [2008] ECR I-0000, points 68 and 69 with further references.
      
      44 –	Case C‑250/91 Hewlett Packard France [1993] ECR I‑1819, paragraph 46; Alexander, ‘Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 220, 221’, in Witte, Zollkodex, Kommentar, 4th edition, 2006, paragraph 5; Huchatz, ‘Art. 239 – Erstattung oder Erlass in Sonderfällen’, ibid., paragraph 32.
      
      45 –	Hewlett Packard France, cited above in footnote 44, paragraph 46.
      
      46 –	See De Haan, cited above in footnote 42, paragraph 42 in conjunction with paragraph 41, regarding earlier versions of Article 220(2)
         and the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code. Alexander, ‘Vorbemerkungen zu Art. 220, 221’, cited above in
         footnote 44, paragraph 2, points out that Article 220(2) of the Customs Code only partially regulates the protection of legitimate
         expectations. On the one hand, it does not provide exhaustively for the protection of legitimate expectations. On the other
         hand, the provision does not enable mutual fault on the part of the customs authority and the customs debtor to be taken into
         account in a differentiated manner. In order to avoid these shortcomings, declarants increasingly submit parallel applications
         for repayment or bring actions for damages on the basis of official liability. Alexander then draws attention to the danger
         of significant sources of error resulting from the institution of several legally separate sets of proceedings based on the
         same facts but with widely differing procedural and substantive requirements. This generally gives rise to the need for expert
         professional, extensive and thus expensive advice for debtors and disproportionately high administrative expenditure on the
         part of the customs authorities concerned, including the Commission. For reasons of procedural economy, the proceedings are
         then frequently not dealt with in parallel, but partly suspended. To remedy this situation, a comprehensive reform of subsequent
         entry in the accounts and of the legislation on remission and repayment is urgently needed. See also Lyons, cited above in
         footnote 30, p. 496, regarding the fact that the two provisions are not coextensive; he also refers in this regard to the
         case-law of the Court of First Instance in Case T‑42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v Commission [1998] ECR II‑401, paragraph 135 et seq., on the corresponding earlier versions of Article 220(2) and the second indent of
         Article 239(1) of the Customs Code.
      
      47 –	See footnote 46 to this Opinion regarding the fact that the provisions concerned are nevertheless not entirely coextensive.
      
      48 –	Cited above in footnote 44, paragraph 46.
      
      49 –	Cited above in footnote 32, paragraphs 55 and 56.
      
      50 –     Cited above in footnote 26, paragraph 92.
      
      51 –	Case C‑64/89 [1990] ECR I‑2535, paragraph 13.
      
      52 –	Cited above in footnote 16, paragraph 33.
      
      53 –	Joined Cases C‑153/94 and C‑204/94 [1996] ECR I‑2465, paragraph 80.
      
      54 –	Case C‑419/04 [2006] ECR I‑5645, paragraph 42.
      
      55 –	Case C‑344/98 [2000] ECR I‑11369.
      
      56 –	Recognised, for example, in regard to a declaration that a Community act is invalid, see, inter alia, Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, paragraph 20, and Case C‑6/99 Greenpeace Franceand Others [2000] ECR I‑1651, paragraph 54. See also Joined Cases C‑143/88 and C‑92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I‑415, paragraph 24.
      
      57 –	Cited above in footnote 55.
      
      58 –	Case C‑234/89 [1991] ECR I‑935, paragraphs 43 to 54.
      
      59 –	Cited above in footnote 55, paragraphs 57 and 59.
      
      60 –	In his Opinion in Masterfoods and HB, cited above in footnote 55, points 40 to 55, Advocate General Cosmas dealt at length with these issues, which also featured
         prominently in the observations of the parties to those proceedings. Advocate General Cosmas mentioned, inter alia, the possibility
         that parties or a party could attempt to choose the type of procedure and thus decide on the Community judicial procedure.
         Moreover, the preliminary ruling procedure, which is not geared to the assessment of facts, is unsuitable for reviewing the
         validity of a Commission decision in the context of answering a question referred for a preliminary ruling, since the exercise
         of an unrestricted right to review the substance is essential for the effective provision of judicial protection with regard
         to such administrative measures. In my view, it should be added that there are also serious problems at the level of the burden
         of presentation and proof: this plays a decisive role in an action for annulment but is of no importance in the preliminary
         ruling procedure. In addition, there is the relatively close structure of the ‘pleas in law’ in the direct action procedure,
         which means that much is already decided at the level of admissibility, without reaching the stage of discussion on the substance,
         and on the other hand the relatively open structure in the preliminary ruling procedure, in which the arguments of all parties
         to the proceedings (including various Member States which may be taking part) are assessed in substance. As a result, those
         differences may lead to considerable difficulties, depending on the type of procedure by which the matter is first brought
         before the Court of Justice.
      
      61 –	See, in this regard, point 36 of my Opinion in Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal FoodsTrading v Commission, cited above in footnote 3.
      
      62 –	Case C‑413/96 [1998] ECR I‑5285, paragraphs 41 to 43.
      
      63 –	Case C‑15/99 [2000] ECR I‑8989, paragraph 31.
      
      64 –	Sportgoods, cited above in footnote 62, paragraph 41.
      
      65 –	In that regard, however, it should be noted that, where the period for bringing an action for annulment under the fifth
         paragraph of Article 230 EC has already expired and the Commission decision in question has thus become definitive as against
         its addressee, that Community measure producing legal effects cannot be called into question again by means of an action before
         national courts and any associated reference for a preliminary ruling (see Case C‑188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECR I‑833, paragraphs 13 to 26, and Case C‑178/95 Wiljo [1997] ECR I‑585, paragraphs 20 to 31.
      
      66 –	This is also supported by paragraph 48 of De Haan, cited above in footnote 42.
      
      67 –	For example, in the case of an application under Article 239(2) of the Customs Code, there is a prescribed period of 12
         months from the date on which the amount of the duties was communicated, which may be extended only in exceptional cases.
      
      68 –	For such information, since it concerns the question of submitted applications, information provided by the parties to
         the proceedings in question will, in many cases, suffice. Otherwise, it should be noted that there is also the option, where
         appropriate, of seeking information from the Commission on the state of any procedure before it. Under Article 10 EC, the
         Commission is bound by a duty of sincere cooperation with the judicial authorities of the Member State; see, in this regard,
         Delimitis, cited above in footnote 58, paragraph 53 with further reference.
      
      69 –	However, in that regard, it should be borne in mind, in a case such as the present, that since the change in the legal
         situation with effect from 1 August 2003 (see above, points 16 to 19 of this Opinion), to which the Italian Government has
         also drawn attention in this context, the possibility of transmission to the Commission has been significantly restricted.
         The court dealing with the case would therefore need to check specifically in each instance in order to determine whether
         transmission is still possible.