Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro, in liquidation, against Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-332/02)
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro, in liquidation, represented by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
(annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of 28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no ground for remission of import duties in respect of imported goods valued at EUR 256 983.63;
(in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reservations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b) of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a remission of import duties is due to the applicants in respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the accused in the criminal proceedings;
(order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case are contesting the defendant's decision finding that there is no ground for the remission of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01, notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).
The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT 2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992. They challenged the order for payment before the Italian courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which refused it.
The present application has been brought under Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties.
1 The applicants claim that they could not be required to pay customs duty in that there are in the present case "special situations" such as to preclude such a requirement of payment, since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and transport documents submitted to them when the goods were declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods were packaging.
The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while the consignment cleared customs under the "conformity" procedure by the customs authority.
Furthermore, in the present case, there was no "negligence" or "deception", as required under Article 13, inasmuch as the applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the commercial and transport documents.
The applicants further request, in the alternative, the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt,
2 which precludes payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which have been confiscated.