- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-708/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2019 — Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0708
62019CN0708
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 413/28
(Case C-708/19)
(2019/C 413/34)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Von Aschenbach & Voss GmbH
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Questions referred
1.Is Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 of 16 February 2017 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of slightly modified certain aluminium foil (1) invalid because it infringes Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, (2) in that it extended to aluminium converter foil the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed in respect of aluminium household foil pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 of 17 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foils originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the proceeding for imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (3) and provides for exemption for aluminium converter foil from anti-dumping duty only under the conditions of Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation 2017/271?
2.Is Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation 2017/271 invalid because the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when adopting that regulation as adequate reasons are not stated for its assumption that 80 % of the products under investigation were slightly modified products?
3.Is Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation 2017/271 invalid because the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when adopting that regulation as it did not check the end use of the imported aluminium foil in the European Union?
(1) OJ 2017 L 40, p. 51.
(2) OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21.
(3) OJ 2015 L 332, p. 63.