Betekenis van:
point duty

point duty
Zelfstandig naamwoord
  • straatdienst
  • the control of traffic by a policeman stationed at an intersection

Hyperoniemen


Voorbeeldzinnen

  1. pay the excise duty at the office referred to in point (a) after the excise goods arrive;
  2. row B1 of the tables in point 6.2.1 of Annex I to Directive 88/77/EEC [11] (Heavy Duty Vehicle Diesel — Euro 4);
  3. ‘at the rate of duty laid down in the Common Customs Tariff’; on page 172, Annex XII, Part B, point 4, Article 4(3):
  4. in Part two, Schedule of customs duties, the duty rates shall be amended as shown in point (a) of the Annex to this Regulation;
  5. ‘at the rate of duty laid down in the Common Customs Tariff’; on page 172, Annex XII, Part B, point 4, Article 4(3): for: ‘3.
  6. The duty of EUR 98 per tonne shall apply to standard-quality raw sugar as defined in Annex I, point III, to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
  7. According to point IV of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, duty free imports of goods of the CN codes 22021000 and ex22029010 originating in Norway are — in principle — to be permitted only within the limits of a duty free quota, while a duty is to be paid for imports outside the quota allocation.
  8. According to point IV of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement, duty free imports of goods of the CN codes 22021000 and ex22029010 originating in Norway are to be permitted only within the limits of a duty free quota while a duty is to be paid for imports outside the quota allocation.
  9. Pursuant to Point IV of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement the products in question should be granted unlimited duty free access to the Community from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.
  10. The duty applicable to raw sugar of subheadings 17011110 and 17011210 whose yield established according to Annex I, point III, to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 differs from 92 % is fixed in the following manner:
  11. The duty applicable to raw sugar of subheadings 17011110 and 17011210 whose yield established according to Annex I, point III, of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 differs from 92 % is fixed in the following manner:
  12. In reply to Deltafina’s defence on this point, the Decision confirms that point 11(a) of the Leniency Notice includes a duty to keep the immunity application confidential, which is justified by the need to ensure that the result of the subsequent investigations which the Commission needs to carry out be not compromised.
  13. If the yield of imported raw sugar as determined in accordance with Point III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 differs from the yield fixed for the standard quality, the customs tariff duty for products falling within CN codes 17011110 and 17011210, and the additional duty for products falling within CN codes 17011110, 17011190, 17011210 and 17011290 to be levied per 100 kilograms of the said raw sugar shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding duty fixed for raw sugar of the standard quality by a correcting coefficient.
  14. If the yield of imported raw sugar as determined in accordance with Point III of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 differs from the yield fixed for the standard quality, the customs tariff duty for products falling within CN codes 17011110 and 17011210, and the additional duty for products falling within CN codes 17011110, 17011190, 17011210 and 17011290 to be levied per 100 kilograms of the said raw sugar shall be calculated by multiplying the corresponding duty fixed for raw sugar of the standard quality by a correcting coefficient. The correcting coefficient shall be obtained by dividing the percentage of the yield of the imported raw sugar by 92.
  15. As provided in the last paragraph under point 3 of the Notice of Initiation, the amendment of the countervailing duty rate will have an impact on the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007, as the latter in previous anti-dumping investigations was adjusted in order to avoid any double counting of the effects of benefits from export subsidies (it is recalled that the definitive anti-dumping duty was based on the dumping margin since the latter was found to be lower than the injury elimination level).