This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/269/45
Case C-375/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV
Case C-375/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV
Case C-375/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV
IO C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 269/23 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV
(Case C-375/07)
(2007/C 269/45)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Respondent: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV
Questions referred
|
1. |
Do sheets as described in the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 (1) come under heading 1905 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are prepared from rice flour, salt and water and then dried, but do not undergo any heat treatment? |
|
2. |
In the light of the answer to Question 1, is Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 valid? |
|
3. |
Must Article 871 of 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 [CCC] (2), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998 (3), be construed as meaning that if, under Article 871(1) thereof, there is an obligation on the customs authority to transmit a case to the Commission before it can decide to dispense with post-clearance recovery in that case, a national court ruling on an appeal by a tax debtor against the decision of the customs authority to proceed (in fact) with post-clearance recovery does not have the power to set aside that post-clearance recovery on the ground of its finding that the conditions laid down in Article 220(2)(b) for (mandatorily) setting aside post-clearance recovery are satisfied, where that finding is not supported by the Commission? |
|
4. |
If the answer to Question 3 should be that the fact that the Commission has the power to take a decision in regard to demands for post-clearance recovery of customs duties does not involve any limitation on the jurisdiction of national courts which are called on to rule in an appeal concerning a demand for post-clearance recovery of customs duties, does Community law contain any separate provision which guarantees uniform application of Community law in the specific case where there is a discrepancy between the views of the Commission and those of the national court concerning the criteria to be applied in the context of Article 220 of the CCC (4) for the purpose of determining whether a mistake on the part of the customs authority could have been detected by a tax debtor? |
(1) Regulation concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13).