Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CA0160

Case C-160/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 — Import of frozen poultrymeat originating in Brazil — Post-clearance recovery of additional import duties — Verification mechanism — Method for calculating additional duties)

OJ C 215, 29.6.2020, p. 3–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.6.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/3


Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-160/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 - Import of frozen poultrymeat originating in Brazil - Post-clearance recovery of additional import duties - Verification mechanism - Method for calculating additional duties)

(2020/C 215/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X BV

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

1.

On a proper construction of Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 248/2010 of 24 March 2010, the fact that goods imported into the European Union have been sold at a loss, that is, at a lower price than the CIF import price as set out in the customs declaration, is not in itself sufficient grounds for a finding that the correctness of the CIF import price has not been proved where the importer proves that all the conditions under which the consignment of those goods took place confirm that that price is correct.

2.

On a proper construction of Article 3(5) and Article 4 of Regulation No 1484/95, as amended by Regulation No 248/2010, in a situation where an importer has been unable to prove the correctness of the CIF import price set out in the customs declaration, the customs authorities must, in order to apply additional duties, set aside that price and make use of the methods for determining the customs value of imported goods laid down in Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.


(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


Top
  翻译: