CELEX: C1997/094/40
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Srl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-10/97)

22 . 3 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/19
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri               applicant to pay the outstanding duties. The defendant, in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 turn, adopted the contested decision pursuant to the
                          (Case T-10/97)                              procedure referred to in Article 5 (2 ) of Council
                                                                      Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
                           ( 97/C 94/40 )
                                                                      post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      which have not been required of the person liable for
                                                                      payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
An action against the Commission of the European                      involving the obligation to pay such duties (2 ).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                    The applicant first of all submits that no reasons
1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri, having its registered office in           whatsoever are given for the alleged invalidity of the
Naples (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the                EUR 1 certificates, in so far as the decision overlooks the
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               fact that the Norwegian Court of Cassation has set aside
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                   the decision imposing liability precisely on the issue of the
                                                                      origin of the goods, and has confirmed only that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           health-inspection certificates were invalid.
primarily:                                                            Second, the applicant considers that, by excluding the
                                                                      possibility that an error on the part of the customs
— declare the application admissible in as much as it                 authorities can ever affect the validity of the certificate of
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                 origin, in as much as the risk relating to such validity
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                 always falls to be borne by the importer, constituting, as it
                                                                      does, part of the commercial risk, the Commission is
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                         acting contrary to Article 220 (2 ) ( b ) of the Community
     8 October 1996 0 ),                                              Customs Code ( 3 ), which lays down the principle of good
                                                                      faith on the part of the person concerned . There is no
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all costs
                                                                      exception which excludes an error as to the validity of the
     associated with these proceedings;
                                                                      certificates of origin from the scope of that rule. The
in the alternative :                                                  interpretation which the Commission advocates would
                                                                      reduce the relevant errors to those of carelessness or
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect             calculation .
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post­
     clearance duties in question;                                    Third, the applicant also submits that Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
in the further alternative :                                          provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 (4 ) is invalid in so far as it confers
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                   unlimited power on the Commission to decide on post­
     decision should not be annulled, order the                       clearance entry in the accounts of uncollected duties,
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire             setting aside the right on which an importer is entitled to
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in                rely in the case where the conditions laid out in Article 220
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary        ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Customs Code obtain . In this connection,
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in           reliance is also placed on the principle of legitimate
     so far as it relates to interest payments .                      expectation and the general principle of fairness.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   (') Unpublished.
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJNoL 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
The applicant company, which trades in fish products,                 ( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
contests the defendant's decision finding that it is                        establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ No L 302,
necessary to effect post-clearance recovery of customs                      19 . 10 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
import duties in the amount of Lit 148 890 000 owing in               (4 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
respect of a number of operations in which cod from
Norway was imported through the customs office in
Verona . On presentation of EUR 1 movement certificates
issued by the relevant Norwegian exporting company, the
applicant took advantage, for those import transactions,
of the preferential customs treatment provided for under              Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2
Community legislation .                                               Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                       Communities
The Norwegian customs authorities subsequently informed                                              ( Case T-ll/97)
the Italian authorities that, pursuant to independent                                                   97/C 94/41
investigations, they had ascertained that the Norwegian
exporter had not been in a position to establish that the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
fish used to produce the cod fillets had originated in
Norway. They accordingly contested the validity of the                An action against the Commission of the European
EUR 1 certificates on which the preferential tariff                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
treatment had been based. Proceeding on the basis of that             Instance of the European Communities on 17 January
notification, the customs office in Verona requested the               1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa, having its registered office