Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-23/03)

    (Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta, Verona, Italy, represented by D. Ehle, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the Commission's decision of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01), in so far as the Commission refused to remit or repay the import duties amounting to ITL 3 296 190 371 collected by way of post-clearance recovery in respect of 32 imports covered by 32 specified A.TR.1 certificates;

(order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 ¹ abolished, with certain exceptions, the customs duties imposed on the goods originating in Turkey listed in Annex II to the EEC Treaty.

Between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997, the applicant, an Italian company which, inter alia, processes imported fruit juice concentrates, put on the market for free circulation apple and pear juice concentrates declared to originate in Turkey. According to the applicant, the shipments were accompanied by proper documents, including the A.TR.1 movement of goods certificates. In 1998, the customs authorities in Ravenna presented the applicant with a list of A.TR.1 certificates. On the basis of examinations of the authenticity and regularity of the certificates carried out at the offices of the Turkish customs authority, it was alleged that the applicant had imported apple juice concentrates with falsified A.TR.1 certificates. At the same time, the applicant was required to pay import duties by way of post-clearance recovery.

The applicant lodged an objection to the customs assessment notices issued by the competent customs authority in Ravenna. At the same time, it applied for remission under Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of the Customs Code. The Italian tax authorities submitted the decision on the remission of the import duties collected by way of post-clearance recovery to the Commission.

In the contested decision, the Commission, inter alia, takes the view that 32 A.TR.1 certificates were falsified. The Commission refused the applicant's request for remission of ITL 3 296 190 371.

In support of its claim for annulment of the part of the Commission's decision refusing remission, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its right of access to the file, inasmuch as, in the course of providing access to the file, the Commission failed to disclose and produce to the applicant all the documents relevant to the case.

The applicant further submits that the Commission failed to comply with its remission or repayment obligation under Article 239 of the Customs Code in respect of the 32 allegedly falsified A.TR.1 certificates, since those 32 certificates too were issued and registered and handed over to the exporter when clearing the goods for export with the knowledge and cooperation of the competent Turkish customs authority, which was aware of the possibility that the goods might not be of Turkish origin.

Moreover, the Commission infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code since the Turkish customs authorities knew or could reasonably have known that the deliveries for which the 32 A.TR 1 certificates were issued, were not of Turkish origin, whereas, when importing the products, the applicant acted in good faith and was unaware of the misconduct of the Turkish customs authority.

____________

¹ - (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 of 22 December 1986 on imports into the Community of agricultural products originating in Turkey (OJ 1986 L 380, p. 16).