Case T‑65/11

Recombined Dairy System A/S

v

European Commission

(Customs union — Import of lactoglobulin concentrates from New Zealand — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Request for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 5 June 2013

1.      Own resources of the European Union — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Exception — Restrictive interpretation

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220(2)(b), and 239)

2.      Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Cumulative nature

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b))

3.      Own resources of the European Union — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Conditions for non-entry of import duties in the accounts set out in Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 — Error of the competent authorities themselves — Non-provision of binding tariff information — Irrelevant

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b))

4.      Customs union — Application of the customs rules — Products classed under the same tariff heading — Legitimate expectation of the taxpayer — Commission not providing binding tariff information confirming that classification — Irrelevant

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 871(5))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 22)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 23)

3.      Under Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the competent authorities may be regarded as having committed an error where they have not raised any objection to the tariff classification of the goods made by the trader in its customs declarations, if those declarations contained all the factual particulars needed in order to apply the relevant rules, so that any subsequent check carried out by the customs authorities could not disclose any new fact. That is the case in particular where all the customs declarations submitted by the trader have been complete, in that they gave, in particular, a description of the goods in accordance with the indications of the nomenclature beside the declared tariff heading and where the imports in question have been fairly numerous and have taken place over a relatively long period without the tariff heading having been challenged.

The said Article 220(2)(b), conferring a right to remission of import or export duties in the case of error by the customs authorities, also applies in situations in which the applicant is not the holder of or has not requested binding tariff information. The fact that the applicant has not requested binding tariff information for the products concerned does not mean, however, that the customs authorities have not committed an error.

(see paras 24, 25, 27)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 33)