- Case originates from a ruling by the Munich Finance Court on January 27, 2022 (Case No. 14 K 1797/19).
- A company requested exemption from anti-dumping duties on essential bicycle parts imported from China.
- Anti-dumping measures aim to protect the European bicycle industry from unfair competition due to subsidized or undervalued imports.
- The plaintiff has a long-standing authorization for end-use under Article 254 of the Union Customs Code, which has been updated multiple times.
- In 2018, the plaintiff sought retroactive exemption under Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97, which was denied by customs authorities (HZA).
- The Finance Court upheld the HZA’s decision, stating that the requested extension for duty-free import of 299 bicycle parts per month per customer was rightly rejected.
- The exemption under Article 14(c) is intended only for small enterprises that do not exceed 300 units per essential bicycle part per month.
- The plaintiff appealed, arguing that “small enterprise” is not defined in relevant regulations, creating ambiguity regarding the threshold for large enterprises.
- The Munich Finance Court rejected the appeal, stating that the conditions for tax exemption were not met.
- The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) identified a need for clarification on EU law and referred questions to the European Court of Justice (EuGH):
- Can Article 14(c) of Regulation 88/97 be interpreted to allow exemptions from anti-dumping duties in combination with other exemptions under Article 14(a) and/or (b)?
- Can Article 14(c) be interpreted to exempt less than 300 units per customer per month from the anti-dumping duties?
- Is a quantity of less than 300 units per month under Article 14(c) considered a threshold for exemption?
Source: awb-international.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
