Action brought on 15 June 2023 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-329/23)

(2023/C 286/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and L. Halajová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

The dispute concerns imports of selected consignments of textiles, footwear and sunglasses in November and December 2011 under the Discount action concerning undervalued imports from Asia. The disputed amount corresponds to the difference between the customs duties collected on the basis of the declared customs value of the goods and the customs duties which, in the view of the European Commission, should have been levied on the basis of the statistical value of goods classified under the same TARIC code, after the deduction of recovery costs. The European Commission first requested reimbursement of the difference on the basis of 50 % of the statistical value, and therefore on 15 June 2018, an amount of CZK 28 307 935,78 was paid conditionally into the European Commission’s account in order to avoid an increase in default interest. After several years, the European Commission requested reimbursement of the difference to 100 % of the statistical value and therefore on 20 December 2022 the amount of CZK 33 444 448,24 was, again conditionally, paid into the European Commission’s account. In the meantime, the European Commission has allowed the Czech Republic to recover, by offsetting, the sum of CZK 641 306,81 for several unduly included consignments.

By that conduct, the European Commission has rendered the European Union non-contractually liable. There was no legal reason for payment of the sums concerned into the European Commission’s account. The Czech Republic complied with all the obligations arising under EU law by carrying out, for all the imports concerned, a thorough inspection of the goods and the related documentation and, following the findings of those inspections, by determining and collecting customs duties on the basis of the customs value declared. It also maintains that, even if the declared customs value were called into question, the customs duties could not be levied on the basis of a statistical value. The customs value should have been determined by the procedure under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, that is to say, primarily according to the customs value of the same or similar goods. In any event, the Commission applied an incorrect exchange rate of EUR to CZK for the imports made in November 2011, which wrongly overestimated the amount claimed.