Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) 24 October 2013, C‑175/12 (Sandler AG v Hauptzollamt Regensburg.)

Also known as

In a preliminary ruling concerning the import of synthetic fibres from Nigeria into the EU under the Cotonou Agreement preferential arrangement, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that Article 889(1) second indent of Regulation No 2454/93 does not preclude a repayment request where preferential treatment was granted at the time of release for free circulation and duties were only recovered post-clearance after expiry of the preferential arrangement. The Court further held that where a post-clearance examination reveals a stamp on a EUR.1 movement certificate not matching the specimen notified by the exporting State's authorities, the importing State's customs authorities may refuse that certificate and return it to the importer to obtain a retrospectively issued certificate under Article 16(1)(b) of Protocol No 1, without being obliged to initiate the verification procedure under Article 32 of that Protocol. Finally, Articles 16(4) and (5) and 32 of Protocol No 1 preclude the importing State's authorities from refusing to accept as a retrospectively issued EUR.1 certificate a document that, while otherwise compliant, bears in the 'Remarks' box an indication of replacement rather than the precise wording specified in Article 16(4), unless well-founded doubts as to authenticity or originating status warrant initiation of the Article 32 control procedure.AI