28.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/9

(Case C-153/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Articles 12(2) and (5), 217(1) and 243 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Implementing provisions of Regulation No 2913/92 - Articles 10 and 11 - Classification of goods - Binding tariff information - Invocation by a trader other than the holder with respect to the same goods - Legitimate expectations)

2011/C 160/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe) BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 12(2) and (5), 217(1), and 243 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 11 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 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Classification of goods — Challenge to a decision of the customs authorities on the classification of a product — Reliance by the complainant on binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar product

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Articles 10 and 11 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 12/97 of 18 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes customs declarations in his own name and on his own behalf cannot rely on a binding tariff information of which he is not the holder, but which is held by an associated company on whose instructions he made those declarations.

2.Articles 12(2) and (5) and 217(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, and Article 11 of Regulation No 2454/93, read in conjunction with Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 12/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings relating to the imposition of customs duties, an interested party may challenge that imposition by submitting as evidence a binding tariff information issued in respect of the same goods in another Member State although the binding tariff information cannot produce the legal effects attaching to it. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether the relevant procedural rules of the Member State concerned provide for the possibility of producing such types of evidence.

3.Article 12 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 12/97, must be interpreted as meaning that a national policy which allows national authorities to refer, for the purpose of the tariff classification of declared goods, to a binding tariff information issued to a third party for the same goods, could not give rise, on the part of traders, to a legitimate expectation that they could rely on that policy.

Language of the case: Dutch.