Stappert Magyarorszag (Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Imposition of definitive safeguard measures in respect of imports of certain steel products - Taiwan - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-115/25 (30 April 2026)

Judgment This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(1) and (6) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ 2019 L 31, p. 27), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/434 of 15 March 2022 (OJ 2022 L 88, p. 181) ('Implementing Regulation 2019/159'), and of Article 2(1) and (2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2021 L 327, p. 1), read in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483. The request has been made in proceedings between Stappert Magyarország Kft., a company engaged in wholesale metal and mineral trading, and the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary) ('the tax appeal authority') concerning the cumulative application of an anti-dumping duty and an additional safeguard duty on steel products originating in Taiwan, and the conditions for the suspension of the first of those duties. Legal context Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 Article 49 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), entitled 'General rules on the uniform management of tariff quotas', provides, in paragraph 2 thereof: 'Each tariff quota is identified in the Union legislation by an order number that facilitates its management.' Implementing Regulation 2019/159 Article 1(1) to (3), (5) and (6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 provides: '1. Subject to Articles 6 and 7, a tariff quota is hereby opened in relation to imports into the [European] Union of each of the 26 products categories concerned (defined by reference to the CN codes specified in relation to it in Annex I) and each of the periods specified in Annex IV.1 and IV.2. 2. For each of the product categories concerned, and with the exception of product categories 8 and 25a, a part of each tariff-rate quota is allocated to the countries specified in Annex IV. 3. The remaining part of each tariff-rate quota, as well as the tariff-rate quota for product categories 8 and 25, shall be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, based on a tariff-rate quota established equally for each quarter of the period of imposition. … 5. Where the relevant tariff-rate quota under paragraph 2 is exhausted for one specific country, imports from that country for some product categories can be made under the remaining part of the tariff-rate quota for the same product category. This provision shall only apply during the last quarter of each year of application of the definitive tariff-rate quota. … 6. Where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted or where imports of the product categories do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota, an additional duty at the rate of 25%, applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, shall be applied on the product categories set out in Annex IV.1.' Article 3 of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 provides: 'The tariff-rate quotas set out in Article 1 shall be managed by the [European] Commission and the Member States in accordance with the management system for tariff-rate quotas provided for in Articles 49 to 54 of [Implementing Regulation 2015/2447].' Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 Recital 286 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 is worded as follows: 'By [Implementing Regulation 2019/159], the Commission imposed a safeguard measure with respect to certain steel products for a period of three years. … Consequently, once the tariff quotas established under the safeguard measure are exceeded, both the above-quota tariff duty and the anti-dumping duty would become payable on the same imports. As such cumulation of anti-dumping measures with safeguard measures may lead to an effect on trade [greater] than desirable, the Commission decided to prevent the concurrent application of the anti-dumping duty with the above-quota tariff duty for the product under review for the duration of the imposition of the safeguard duty.' Recital 287 of Implementing Regulation No 2021/1483 states: 'This means that where the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of [Implementing Regulation 2019/159] becomes applicable to the product under review and exceeds the level of the anti-dumping duties pursuant to this Regulation, only the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of [Implementing Regulation 2019/159] shall be collected. During the period of concurrent application of the safeguard and anti-dumping duties, the collection of the duties imposed pursuant to this Regulation shall be suspended. …' Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 provides: '1. Where the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of [Implementing Regulation 2019/159] becomes applicable to flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold reduced) and exceeds the equivalent ad valorem level of the anti-dumping duty set out in Article 1(2), only the above-quota tariff duty referred to in Article 1(6) of [Implementing Regulation 2019/159] shall be collected. 2. During the period of application of paragraph 1, the collection of the duties imposed pursuant to this Regulation shall be suspended.' The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling The Commission, by means of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, imposed definitive safeguard measures in respect of imports of certain steel products, consisting in the application of an additional duty of 25% on imports, from third countries, of products falling under CN codes 7219 32 10, 7219 33 10, 7219 34 10 and 7219 90 80. Furthermore, by Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, it imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold reduced), originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, falling under, inter alia, the same CN codes. The rate of that duty amounts, in principle, to 6.8% for Taiwanese producers. On 1 April 2022, Stappert Magyarország submitted to the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-budapesti Adó- és Vámigazgatósága (Budapest-South Tax and Customs Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Authority, Hungary) ('the first-tier tax authority') a request for release for free circulation of various steel products originating in Taiwan. That request was submitted under preference code 120 and stated quota order number 09.8847 for four types of stainless steel products falling under TARIC codes 7219 32 10 00, 7219 33 10 00, 7219 90 80 00 and 7219 34 10 00. The quota with order number 09.8847 was exhausted on the same day the request was submitted. A second quota, with order number 09.8578, opened on 1 April 2022 for the same countries of origin and the same product categories, was exhausted on 11 April 2022. Stappert Magyarország had not referred to that second quota in its request for release for free circulation. Following the examination, by the Commission's Directorate-General for 'Taxation and Customs Union', of that request, the first-tier tax authority granted the benefit of the preferential tariff-rate quota only in respect of part of the imported goods, within the limit of the quota that was still available, at the time of the request, under quota No 09.8847. By decision of 8 September 2022, the first-tier tax authority imposed on all the products released for free circulation a definitive anti-dumping duty of 6.8% and, only for the products the volume of which exceeded the remaining available share of tariff-rate quota No 09.8847, an additional duty of 25%. It relied on Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, which provides that, 'where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted or where imports of the product categories do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota, an additional duty at the rate of 25%, … shall be applied …'. Adjudicating on the administrative appeal brought by Stappert Magyarország, the tax appeal authority upheld that decision in so far as it used the cumulative application of the anti-dumping duty and the additional duty in respect of the part of the products that was above-quota. The tax appeal authority considered that, although a second quota volume (No 09.8578) was still available on the date of acceptance of the request for release for free circulation, in respect of the country of origin and the products concerned, Stappert Magyarország could not, however, benefit from it since it had not referred to that quota volume in its request. As regards the application of the non-cumulation rules, the tax appeal authority nevertheless took the view that, in view of the existence of that second quota volume, the relevant tariff-rate quota should not be regarded as exhausted within the meaning of Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159. It inferred from this that the conditions for the suspension of anti-dumping duties, laid down in Article 2 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, were not met, even though that implementing regulation provides, in certain situations, for the suspension of those duties where additional duties are applied. Stappert Magyarország brought an action before the referring court against the decision of the tax appeal authority confirming the cumulative application of those two duties for the products in respect of which Stappert Magyarország had been refused the benefit of the preferential tariff-rate quota. According to that company, such a cumulative application is contrary to the intention of the EU legislature, as, it argues, is apparent from recital 286 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483. It submits that, if the additional duty of 25% were to apply to above-quota products falling under order number 09.8847, pursuant to Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% should, by contrast, have been suspended pursuant to Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, since the rate of the additional duty exceeded that of the anti-dumping duty. Stappert Magyarország further submits that the tax appeal authority made an error of interpretation by making the suspension of the anti-dumping duty subject to the joint exhaustion of the quotas with order numbers 09.8847 and 09.8578. According to that company, Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 clearly links the suspension of the anti-dumping duty to the exhaustion of the 'tariff-rate quota', and not to the exhaustion of several successive tariff-rate quotas. It infers from this that the exhaustion of quota No 09.8847 alone was sufficient to trigger the regime applicable to above-quota imports. The referring court notes that the outcome of the dispute before it depends, in essence, on the interpretation of the rules for the combined application of the duties following from the anti-dumping measures and safeguard measures stemming, respectively, from Implementing Regulations 2021/1483 and 2019/159. In those circumstances, the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), which is the referring court, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: '(1) Must the term “relevant”, used in Article 1(6) of [Implementing Regulation 2019/159] be interpreted, with regard to the particular product categories with a specific CN code mentioned in Article 1(1) of that regulation, as referring to all of the order numbers (tariff-rate quota[s]) open for each period or only to the order number (tariff-rate quota) in relation to which the importer has submitted a tariff-rate quota request? (2) Must the expression “where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable” in Article 2(1) of [Implementing Regulation 2021/1483] be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable because the 'relevant' tariff-rate quota has been exhausted or as also referring to situations in which the additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as … the failure to submit a request? (3) Must Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 be interpreted as meaning that the collection of the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% is suspended only as a consequence of the application of the additional duty of 25% on account of the relevant tariff-rate quota having been exhausted or is it also suspended when the additional duty is applicable for any other reason, such as … the failure to submit a request? (4) Must Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 and Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of the latter [implementing] regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the additional duty and the anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed together, even in the case where, on the date on which the open tariff-rate quota with a particular order number was exhausted, the Commission opened a new tariff-rate quota with a different order number for products with the same CN code and the importer only requested the preferential customs procedure in relation to the exhausted tariff-rate quota?' Consideration of the questions referred The first question By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 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. The referring court notes that that expression is open to two interpretations. According to the first interpretation, the term 'relevant' refers to the 26 product categories covered by the safeguard measures imposed by Implementing Regulation 2019/159 and, consequently, to all of the tariff-rate quotas opened for those product categories. According to the second interpretation, that term relates only to the order number under which an importer has made a request for a quota allocation. Under that second interpretation, the exhaustion of the tariff-rate quota relating to only that order number would be sufficient to render the additional duty of 25% applicable. In its written observations, the Hungarian Government takes the view that the expression 'where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted' relates to the category of products concerned, and not to each of the order numbers considered in isolation. By contrast, according to the Commission, that expression refers only to the order number under which the importer has submitted a request for a tariff-rate quota. The expression 'relevant tariff-rate quota' is not defined in Implementing Regulation 2019/159. However, the provisions of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, read in conjunction with those of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, provide information enabling the scope of that expression to be defined. First, Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 provides that 'a tariff quota is hereby opened in relation to imports into the Union of each of the 26 products categories concerned … and each of the periods specified …'. Second, Article 3 of that implementing regulation provides that 'the tariff-rate quotas set out in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission and the Member States in accordance with the management system for tariff-rate quotas provided for in Articles 49 to 54 of [Implementing Regulation] 2015/2447.' In that regard, Article 49(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 provides that 'each tariff quota is identified in the Union legislation by an order number that facilitates its management.' It follows from those provisions that, for the purposes of the management of tariff-rate quotas, each tariff-rate quota is identified by an order number. That finding is, moreover, consistent with Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, from which it is apparent that a tariff-rate quota is opened for a specific period. Therefore, the expression 'relevant tariff-rate quota', within the meaning of Article 1(6) of that implementing regulation, must be understood as referring to the quota corresponding to the particular order number stated in the request for release for free circulation. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 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. The second question By its second question, the referring court asks whether Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression 'where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable', within the meaning of that provision, covers only the situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable solely because of the exhaustion of the tariff-rate quota, or whether it also covers the other situations in which that duty becomes applicable, including where no request for the allocation of a tariff-rate quota has been made. The Hungarian Government states, in its written observations, that that provision refers exclusively to cases in which the additional duty becomes applicable as a result of the exhaustion of the relevant tariff-rate quota. The Commission considers, on the contrary, that the expression in question concerns, without exception, any situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable, including where the importer has not requested the benefit of the tariff-rate quota. In the present case, Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, which refers to the situation 'where the above-quota tariff duty … becomes applicable', expressly refers to the additional duty of 25% laid down in Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159. According to the latter provision, that additional duty applies 'where the relevant tariff-rate quota is exhausted or where imports of the product categories do not benefit from the relevant tariff-rate quota'. It follows that the application of the additional duty of 25% results not only from the exhaustion of the tariff-rate quota stated in a request for release for free circulation, but also from any situation in which the imports in question do not benefit from that tariff-rate quota, including where no request for allocation of that tariff-rate quota has been made. Consequently, the answer to the second question is that Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 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) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, 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. The third question By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must be interpreted as meaning that the suspension of the definitive anti-dumping duties applies only if the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable because of the exhaustion of the relevant tariff-rate quota, or also whether that additional duty becomes applicable in other situations, 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. In its written observations, the Hungarian Government states that the anti-dumping duty cannot be suspended if a tariff-rate quota remains available, including under an order number other than that stated by the importer. By contrast, according to the Commission, Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must be applied, in respect of a request for release for free circulation relating to a given order number, in all cases where the additional duty of 25% is applicable. The latter duty and the anti-dumping duty can never, the Commission argues, be applied simultaneously to the same volume of imports under a single order number, and the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% should therefore be suspended. In the present case, it follows from the answer given to the second question that Article 2(1) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 covers any situation in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable under Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, 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. In that situation, only the latter duty applies if its amount exceeds that of the anti-dumping duties. In those circumstances, the suspension of the collection of the anti-dumping duty of 6.8% that is provided for in Article 2(2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must be effective throughout the period in which only the additional duty of 25% applies, under Article 2(1) of that implementing regulation. The answer to the third question is therefore that Article 2(2) of 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. The fourth question By its fourth question, the referring court asks whether Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159 and Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 must, in the light of recitals 286 and 287 of the latter implementing regulation, be interpreted as meaning that an additional duty and an anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed simultaneously, including where, on the date of exhaustion relating to a certain order number, a new tariff-rate quota is opened, under a different order number, for products falling within the same CN code, even though the importer requested the benefit of the preferential customs regime only in respect of the exhausted tariff-rate quota. In its written observations, the Hungarian Government states that recitals 286 and 287 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 have no bearing on the legality of the cumulative application of the additional duty of 25% and the anti-dumping duty of 6.8%. By contrast, according to the Commission, those two duties cannot be applied simultaneously to the same volume of imports falling within the same order number, irrespective of whether or not the importer has submitted a request for a tariff-rate quota under another order number. In that regard, it follows from the answers given to the first to third questions (i) that the 'relevant tariff-rate quota', within the meaning of Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, corresponds to the quota identified by the order number stated in the request for release for free circulation, and (ii) that Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483 applies in all situations in which the additional duty of 25% becomes applicable under that provision. It follows that the existence of an available tariff-rate quota, for the same products, under a different order number, has no bearing on the application of the additional duty of 25% in respect of the order number stated in the request for release for free circulation and on the application, where applicable, of the rule, suspending the anti-dumping duty of a lower value, that is provided for in Article 2(1) and (2) of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, in the present case 6.8%. The only condition that may or may not trigger the suspension of the anti-dumping duty is whether its amount is lower than that of the additional duty. Similarly, the fact that an importer has not requested the benefit of a tariff-rate quota under another order number cannot, by itself, preclude the application of that suspension rule, since such a condition does not follow from Implementing Regulation 2019/159 or from Implementing Regulation 2021/1483. That interpretation is supported by recitals 286 and 287 of Implementing Regulation 2021/1483, according to which, in essence, the application of the anti-dumping measures must be arranged in such a way as to avoid, during the application of safeguard measures, an excessive effect resulting from the simultaneous application of the two duties. The answer to the fourth question is therefore that Article 1(6) of Implementing Regulation 2019/1959 and Article 2(1) and (2) of 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. Costs Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 1(6) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 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) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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) of 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) of 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) of Implementing Regulation 2019/159, as amended by Implementing Regulation 2022/434, and Article 2(1) and (2) of 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. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Hungarian. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII