Action brought on 24 January 2011 - Canon Europa v Commission

(Case T-34/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canon Europa NV (Amstelveen, The Netherlands), (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare the action admissible;

Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p.1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under Harmonized System ("HS") subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p.1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under HS subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

Firstly, the applicant claims that the application for annulment is admissible under Article 263 TFEU since the contested measure is a regulatory act which is of direct concern to the applicant and which does not entail any further implementing measures.

In addition, the applicant argues that the contested act is invalid because it reduces the scope of HS 2007 subheading 8443.31 by excluding Multifunctional Machines ("MFMs") which were previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheading 8471.60 from its scope, while the defendant may not modify the scope of HS subheadings pursuant to Article 3 of the HS Convention¹, and Article 1.2(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87².

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested act is invalid because it modifies the duty rates applicable to certain MFMs previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheadings 8471.60 and 8517.21, and thereby violates Article 9.2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87.

Finally, the contested act violates Article II of GATT 1994³ and the obligations undertaken by the EU in its Schedule of concessions because it imposes duties on certain MFMs for which the EU had undertaken to eliminate all customs duties.

____________

¹ - International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of 14 June 1983.

² - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

³ - The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.