CELEX: C1999/352/27
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-317/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999 in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

4.12.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 352/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                     such a request, designed to prevent application of Article 3(3)
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999                 of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, is still accepted after the
in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously                      goods have been released?
Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbe-
                            heer en Visserij                              5.     If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative:
                           (Case C-317/99)
                                                                          Is it in accordance with Community law, in particular
                           (1999/C 352/27)                                Article 220(2), introductory phrase and (b), of Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 2913/92 and the principle of the protection of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    legitimate expectations, if subsequent entry in the accounts is
European Communities by decision of 21 July 1999 from the                 made under Article 220(1) of that regulation, where the
College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative                 circumstances are as described in the second question?
Court for Trade and Industry), which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the               6.     If the fifth question is answered in the negative:
case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof,
and Minister van Landbonw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Minister             Must the fifth question also be answered in the negative if the
for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Fisheries) on the                  circumstances outlined in the third question obtain?
following questions:
                                                                          (1) OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47.
1.      Is Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 (1) valid, in so far as it         (2) OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77.
sets out the provisions of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EEC)               (3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
No 2777/75 (2) which provides that the additional import duty
referred to in Article 5 of the Agreement [on Agriculture, OJ
1994 L 336, p. 22] is determined on the basis of the cif import
price of the consignment in question — in such a way that
such determination can be made only if the importer so
requests and in all other cases the import price of the
consignment in question to be taken into consideration for the            Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos
additional import duty is the representative price referred to in         Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95?                              Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                          Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative:             1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Is it in accordance with Community law, and in particular with            in case T-82/96 (1) between Associação dos Refinadores
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, if, in        de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
the case where no request has been made under Article 3(1) of             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA
Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, the customs debt is calculated               and the Commission of the European Communities,
pursuant to Article 3(3) thereof, where:                                  supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI — Socied-
                                                                                   ade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA
— the cif price of the consignment in question indicated on
      the declaration is higher than the trigger price;                                            (Case C-321/99 P)
— the declarant was informed by the customs authorities that
      such a request did not have to be made in that case;                                          (1999/C 352/28)
— the declarant acted in good faith in relying on that customs            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by
      information; and                                                    the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-82/96
— the declarant otherwise complied with all conditions of the             between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      applicable provisions relating to customs declarations?             (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinar-
                                                                          ias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the
3.      If the second question is answered in the affirmative:            European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial
Does that affirmative answer still apply if, in addition to the           SA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
circumstances mentioned in the second question, the declarant             Communities on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refina-
in question has taken cognisance of the ‘Verification Notices’            dores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
issued in connection with earlier declarations which he made,             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA,
as reproduced in paragraph 2.2, second indent, of this                    represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advocaat, with an address
decision?                                                                 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                          Grand Rue.
4.      If the second and third questions are answered in the
affirmative:                                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
Do the provisions of Regulation No 1484/95, in conjunction                — declare their application for appeal to be admissible;
with Article 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (3), preclude
the situation in which, where no request was initially made               — set aside in part the judgment of 17 June 1999 of the
under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 because of                  Court of First Instance to the extent described in this
reliance on the information given by the customs authorities,                 application;