11.8.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/30

Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

(Case T-269/12)

2012/C 243/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Makro autoservicio mayorista, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 2/08), notified to the applicant by a letter dated 19 April 2012; and

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that import duties were entered in the account contrary to Article 220(2)(b) CCC (1), since the defendant erroneously considered that anti-dumping regulations adopted against imports from third countries are automatically applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union, and as a result, the defendant erroneously failed to inform traders that the AD Regulation concerned was also applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Alternatively, the Turkish authorities committed an error when they confirmed that the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods from third countries were not applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Further, the applicant submits that the Spanish customs authorities also committed an error since they assumed that goods accompanied by an A.TR certificate could not be subject to any additional duties or trade protection measures, and failed to inform economic operator that their imports from Turkey could be subject to trade measures, even if such goods were in free circulation.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the error committed by the competent customs authorities could not have been reasonably detected by the person liable for payment, having acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that it finds itself in a special situation of Article 239 CCC, and that no deception or obvious negligence can be attributed to the applicant pursuant to Article 239 CCC.

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1)