- 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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Tax Classification of Parking Lot Parcels with Paving: A-G’s Conclusion on VAT Status
- E-invoicing obligation in the Netherlands: where does The Hague really stand?
- AG Dutch Supreme Court: When Does Brick Paving Qualify as Developed Land in Dutch Law?
- Benelux Study Day on E-Invoicing (25 March 2025): Conclusions and Strategic Outlook
- Netherlands Reveals Four-Phase Plan for EU ViDA Implementation by 2030 Deadline