This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CA0391
Case C-391/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — The Union Customs Code — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 — Article 172(2) — Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure — Retroactive effect — Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ — Change of tariff classification — Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
Case C-391/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — The Union Customs Code — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 — Article 172(2) — Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure — Retroactive effect — Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ — Change of tariff classification — Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
Case C-391/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — The Union Customs Code — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 — Article 172(2) — Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure — Retroactive effect — Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ — Change of tariff classification — Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
OJ C 287, 31.8.2020, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
31.8.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 287/14 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria
(Case C-391/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 - Article 172(2) - Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure - Retroactive effect - Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ - Change of tariff classification - Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
(2020/C 287/20)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Varhoven administrativen sad
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘Unipack’ АD
Defendants: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria
Operative part of the judgment
Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the grant, under Article 254 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, of authorisation with retroactive effect for the use of the end-use customs procedure, as provided for in that provision, factors such as the premature end of the validity of a binding tariff information decision as a result of an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, that there was no action by the customs authorities concerning imports bearing an incorrect code or the fact that the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty cannot be classified as ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.