European Court of Justice

Local Contact

25 May 2026
Subject Tax updates
Categories Tax

Overview:

ECJ ruling (Case C-115/25, Stappert Magyarország Kft.) regarding the suspension of anti-dumping duties when higher safeguard duties apply

Customs - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common commercial policy – Anti-dumping duties – Imposition of definitive safeguard measures in respect of imports of certain steel products – Import of stainless steel products originating in Taiwan – Two valid order numbers – Exhaustion of one of two tariff-rate quotas – Cumulative imposition of anti-dumping duties and additional duties)

The ECJ rules that: 

  1. Article 1(6) Implementing regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/434 of 15 March 2022 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression "where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted", on which the application of the additional duty of 25% laid down in that provision depends, refers only to the particular order number stated in the request for release for free circulation.
  2. Article 2(1) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression "where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable", within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that implementing regulation, covers any situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable under Article 1(6) Implementing Regulation 2019/159, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2022/434, including where the imports do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota due to the fact that no request for allocation of that tariff-rate quota has been made.
  3. Article 2(2) Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must be interpreted as meaning that the suspension of the definitive anti-dumping duties that is provided for in that provision applies in all cases where the additional duty, the amount of which is higher than the anti-dumping duties, becomes applicable for any reason whatsoever, including where the imports do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota due to the fact that no request for allocation of that tariff-rate quota has been made.
  4. Article 1(6) Implementing Regulation 2019/159, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2022/434, and Article 2(1) and (2) Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, read in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of the latter implementing regulation must be interpreted as meaning that an anti-dumping duty and an additional duty cannot be imposed simultaneously when, for the imports in question, the conditions for the application of the suspension that are laid down in Article 2 of the latter implementing regulation are met, including where, on the day on which a tariff-rate quota relating to a certain order number is exhausted, a new tariff-rate quota is opened, under a different order number, for products falling within the same CN code, and where the importer requested the benefit of the preferential customs regime only in respect of the exhausted tariff-rate quota.

ECJ ruling (Case C-157/25, Jas Forwarding) regarding import of photovoltaic modules and the interpretation of "consigned from" Malaysia or Taiwan

Customs - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commercial policy – Anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367 – Import of photovoltaic modules assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan – Concept of "consigned from Malaysia or Taiwan" – Customs declarations – Country of dispatch – Indication of commodity code – Proof of exemption)

The AG advises the following: 

The words "consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan" in Implementing Regulations 2016/184, 2016/185, 2017/366 and 2017/367 must be interpreted as referring to where the photovoltaic modules at issue are "from". Consequently, crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or panels, which were assembled in South Korea or Vietnam with photovoltaic cells produced in Malaysia or Taiwan and were subsequently imported into the EU from South Korea or Vietnam, must be regarded as having been "consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan", within the meaning of those implementing regulations. Those photovoltaic modules or panels must be declared as having as their "country of dispatch", within the meaning of box 15 in Annex 9, Appendix C1, Title II C of Delegated Regulation 2016/341, South Korea or Vietnam and must be indicated by the relevant commodity codes for photovoltaic modules or panels "[imported] from Malaysia or Taiwan".

Article 1(2) Implementing Regulations 2016/184 and 2016/185 and Article 4(2) Implementing Regulations 2017/366 and 2017/367 must be interpreted as meaning that the declarations provided for therein must contain all the elements required under those provisions, with the exception of any evidence or information which it is materially impossible to provide as it does not exist. In such a case, the competent national authorities may, where necessary and appropriate, ascertain whether the necessary requirements for benefiting from the exemptions provided for in those implementing regulations are met on the basis of other relevant evidence.

General Court ruling (Case T-194/25), Scrap Transporteur) regarding qualification of scraps as tobacco subject to excise duties

Excises - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco – Smoking tobacco – Concept of "tobacco capable of being smoked without further industrial processing" – Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2011/64/UE – Scraps of raw tobacco, uncut but threshed and stripped, capable of being processed into water-pipe tobacco through a complex process carried out at home by the consumer)

The General Court rules that: 

  1. Article 5(1)(a) Council Directive 2011/64/EU must be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of whether a product is "capable of being smoked" should not be based on the perception of the public.
  2. Article 5(1)(a) Directive 2011/64 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression "without further industrial processing" encompasses multi-stage methods that consumers can, however, carry out at home.

General Court ruling (Case T-190/25), Tabako lapai) regarding the qualification as smoking tobacco

Excises - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco – Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU – Interpretation of the concept of "smoking tobacco" – Consideration of the provisions of the combined nomenclature and explanatory notes – Validity – Legal certainty – Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law)

The General Court rules that: 

  1. Article 5(1)(a) Council Directive 2011/64/EU must be interpreted as meaning that in order to classify a product as "smoking tobacco", within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary to rely on the tariff headings of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1925 of 12 October 2017, and on the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the EU.
  2. The examination of the aspects to which the third question relates has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2011/64, Implementing Regulation 2017/1925 and the Explanatory Notes to the CN in view of the general principle of legal certainty and the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, enshrined by Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.