This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0326
Case C-326/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Case C-326/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Case C-326/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
OJ C 274, 9.10.2010, pp. 6–7
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.10.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 274/6 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-326/10)
()
2010/C 274/09
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Hamburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does a poultry carcase come under CAP Goods List number 0207 1290 9990 (1) even if a part of the poultry that is not permitted under that product code adheres to giblets that are permitted? |
|
2. |
If the answer to the first question should be in the negative: when a customs office examines whether export products comply with the CAP Goods List number stated in the export declaration is a margin of error to be allowed so that a so-called ‘anomaly’ is not detrimental to a refund? |