- The case involves antidumping and compensatory duties.
- The issue is regarding the method of direct representation and the use of a payment facility.
- The appellant argues that the obligation to pay the customs debt is based on Article 231 of the CDW.
- The appellant claims that they are directly affected by the payment invitations.
- The Supreme Court clarifies that the appellant is not considered a debtor under the CDW.
- The Court states that Article 231 does not impose an obligation on the appellant to pay the customs debt.
- The Court concludes that the payment invitations do not directly affect the appellant.
- The appellant’s argument is rejected by the Court.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
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.
