European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) v European Commission.
Jurisdiction | European Union |
Celex Number | 62023CJ0095 |
ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2024:177 |
Date | 29 February 2024 |
Docket Number | C-95/23 |
Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
29 February 2024 (*)
(Appeal – Dumping – Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Action for annulment – Association representing the interests of importers – Regulatory act entailing implementing measures)
In Case C‑95/23 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 February 2023,
European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M. Campa, avvocato, P. Gjørtler, advokat, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, avvocati,
appellant,
the other party to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of F. Biltgen, President of the Chamber, J. Passer (Rapporteur) and M.L. Arastey Sahún, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Szpunar,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By its appeal, European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) seeks to have set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 December 2022, Euranimi v Commission (T‑769/21, EU:T:2022:786) (‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 327, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’).
Legal context
2 Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1) (‘the Customs Code’), entitled ‘Definitions’, is worded as follows:
‘For the purposes of the [Customs] Code, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(18) “customs debt” means the obligation on a person to pay the amount of import or export duty which applies to specific goods under the customs legislation in force;
…
(26) “release of goods” means the act whereby the customs authorities make goods available for the purposes specified for the customs procedure under which they are placed;
…’
3 Under Article 6(1) and (4) of the Customs Code:
‘1. All exchanges of information, such as declarations, applications or decisions, between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, shall be made using electronic data-processing techniques.
…
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the [European] Commission may adopt in exceptional cases decisions allowing one or several Member States to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques.
Such a decision on a derogation shall be justified by the specific situation of the Member State requesting it and the derogation shall be granted for a specific period of time. The derogation shall be reviewed periodically and may be extended for further specific periods of time upon further application by the Member State to which it is addressed. It shall be revoked where no longer justified.
The derogation shall not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purpose of the application of the customs legislation.’
4 Article 44 of that code provides:
‘1. Any person shall have the right to appeal against any decision taken by the customs authorities relating to the application of the customs legislation which concerns him or her directly and individually.
Any person who has applied to the customs authorities for a decision and has not obtained a decision on that application within the time limits referred to in Article 22(3) shall also be entitled to exercise the right of appeal.
2. The right of appeal may be exercised in at least two steps:
(a) initially, before the customs authorities or a judicial authority or other body designated for that purpose by the Member States;
(b) subsequently, before a higher independent body, which may be a judicial authority or an equivalent specialised body, according to the provisions in force in the Member States.
3. The appeal shall be lodged in the Member State where the decision was taken or was applied for.
4. Member States shall ensure that the appeals procedure enables the prompt confirmation or correction of decisions taken by the customs authorities.’
5 Article 46(1) to (4) of that code provides:
‘1. The customs authorities may carry out any customs controls they deem necessary.
Customs controls may in particular consist of examining goods, taking samples, verifying the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents, examining the accounts of economic operators and other records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried by or on persons and carrying out official enquiries and other similar acts.
2. Customs controls, other than random checks, shall primarily be based on risk analysis using electronic data-processing techniques, with the purpose of identifying and evaluating the risks and developing the necessary counter-measures, on the basis of criteria developed at national, Union and, where available, international level.
3. Customs controls shall be performed within a common risk management framework, based upon the exchange of risk information and risk analysis results between customs administrations and establishing common risk criteria and standards, control measures and priority control areas.
Controls based upon such information and criteria shall be carried out without prejudice to other controls carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 or with other provisions in force.
4. Customs authorities shall undertake risk management to differentiate between the levels of risk associated with goods subject to customs control or supervision and to determine whether the goods will be subject to specific customs controls, and if so, where.
The risk management shall include activities such as collecting data and information, analysing and assessing risk, prescribing and taking action and regularly monitoring and reviewing that process and its outcomes, based on international, Union and national sources and strategies.’
6 Article 48 of that code is worded as follows:
‘For the purpose of customs controls, the customs authorities may verify the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a customs declaration, temporary storage declaration, entry summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification, and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of any supporting document and may examine the accounts of the declarant and other records relating to the operations in respect of the goods in question or to prior or subsequent commercial operations involving those goods after having released them. Those authorities may also examine such goods and/or take samples where it is still possible for them to do so.
Such controls may be carried out at the premises of the holder of the goods or of the holder’s representative, of any other person directly or indirectly involved in those operations in a business capacity or of any other person in possession of those documents and data for business purposes.’
7 Article 79(1) and (2) of the Customs Code is worded as follows:
‘1. For goods liable to import duty, a customs debt on import shall be incurred through non-compliance with any of the following:
(a) one of the obligations laid down in the customs legislation concerning the introduction of non-Union goods into the customs territory of the Union, their removal from customs supervision, or the movement, processing, storage, temporary storage, temporary admission or disposal of such goods within that territory;
(b) one of the obligations laid down in the customs legislation concerning the end-use of goods within the customs territory of the Union;
(c) a condition governing the placing of non-Union goods under a customs procedure or the granting, by virtue of the end-use of the goods, of duty exemption or a reduced rate of import duty.
2. The time at which the customs debt is incurred shall be either of the following:
(a) the moment when the obligation the non-fulfilment of which gives rise to the customs debt is not met or ceases to be met;
(b) the moment when a customs declaration is accepted for the placing of goods under a customs procedure where it is established subsequently that a condition governing the placing of the goods under that procedure or the granting of a duty exemption or a reduced rate of import duty by virtue of the end-use of the goods was not in fact fulfilled.’
8 Article 87 of that code provides:
‘1. A customs debt shall be incurred at the place where the customs declaration or the re-export declaration referred to in Articles 77, 78 and 81 is lodged.
In all other cases, the place where a customs debt is incurred shall be the place where the events from which it arises occur.
If it is not possible to determine that place, the customs debt shall be incurred at the place where the customs authorities conclude that the goods are in a situation in which a customs debt is incurred.
2. If the goods have been placed under a customs procedure which has not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) v European Commission.
...Renewable Fuels Association, C‑465/16 P, EU:C:2019:155, point 72 et jurisprudence citée, ainsi que du 29 février 2024, Euranimi/Commission, C‑95/23 P, EU:C:2024:177, point 39). 34 Ainsi, dans sa jurisprudence, la Cour a identifié certaines catégories d’opérateurs économiques pouvant être co......
-
European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) v European Commission.
...Renewable Fuels Association, C‑465/16 P, EU:C:2019:155, point 72 et jurisprudence citée, ainsi que du 29 février 2024, Euranimi/Commission, C‑95/23 P, EU:C:2024:177, point 39). 34 Ainsi, dans sa jurisprudence, la Cour a identifié certaines catégories d’opérateurs économiques pouvant être co......