Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2020:993
Date: 2020-12-03
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-99/20 ‒ 1 
Case C-99/20 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
24 February 2020 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 February 2020 
Appellants: 
Siebenburgisches Nugat Srl 
Hans Draser Internationales Marketing 
Respondents: 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală ‒ Direcția Generală a 
Vămilor ‒ Direcția Regională Vamală Brașov ‒ Biroul Vamal de 
Interior Sibiu 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against the judgment of the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, Sibiu, 
Romania) dismissing the application brought by Siebenburgisches Nugat SRL for 
the annulment of various administrative acts issued by the respondents. The 
dispute arose from the customs authorities’ classification under tariff code 7306 
30 77 of goods imported by the abovementioned company, which it had classified 
under tariff code 8302 41 90. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of the combined 
nomenclature (‘CN’) set out in Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-99/20 
 
2  
Question referred 
Is the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation 
No 2658/87 to be interpreted as meaning that goods generically described as ‘rail 
components for hanging curtains and drapes, or finished tubes (painted, nickel-
plated, chromed)’, such as those at issue in the present case, fall under tariff 
subheading 8302 41 90 or under subheading 7306 30 77 of the combined 
nomenclature? 
Provisions of EU law and case-law of the Court of Justice cited 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical 
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/110 of 26 January 2015 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and 
pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of 
China and Russia and terminating the proceeding for imports of certain welded 
tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Ukraine following an 
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1225/2009. 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down 
provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 
establishing the Community Customs Code. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1472 of 11 August 2017 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature. 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code. 
Judgments of 23 March 2000, Met-Trans and Sagpol, C-310/98 and C-406/98, 
EU:C:2000:154; of 15 September 2005, Intermodal Transports, C-495/03, 
EU:C:2005:552, and of 27 February 2014, Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia, 
C-571/12, EU:C:2014:102. 
Provisions of national law cited 
Order No 615 of 20 March 2012 of the Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală 
(National Agency for Fiscal Administration, ‘the Agency’) amending the annex to 
Order No 9.250/2006 of the Vice-President of the Agency approving the rules 
governing the operation of the central customs laboratory and the conduct of 
analyses. 
SIEBENBURGISCHES NUGAT 
 
3 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The appellant, Siebenburgisches Nugat SRL, lodged with the competent 
authorities a customs declaration relating to the importation from China of goods 
which it described as ‘rails for hanging curtains and drapes, finished goods 
(painted, nickel-plated, chromed) and accessories for rails’. The appellant 
specified tariff code 8302 41 90 00, for which the customs tariff is 2.7%. 
2 Following a physical inspection of the goods, it was found that they consisted of 
metal tubes (painted, nickel-plated or chrome-plated) of between 16 mm and 25 
mm in diameter and of between 120 and 300 mm in length, and of accessories for 
curtain rails. The goods were packaged in a total of 2 116 parcels. Being in doubt 
as to the correctness of the classification of the tubes under tariff code 8302 41 90, 
the customs authorities took a number of samples and asked the central customs 
laboratory, which operates under the Autoritatea Naționale a Vămilor (national 
customs authority), to carry out tests. 
3 It transpired from those tests, in particular, that there were certain differences in 
the tubes, such that different classifications were called for. Some of the tubes 
needed to be classified under TARIC subheading 7306 30 11 00 and others, which 
failed to meet a minimum aluminium content requirement, under TARIC 
subheading 7306 30 77 80. It was also found that the tubes were used in the 
automobile industry and for metal furniture and metal constructions. 
4 In light of the new tariff classification, the customs authorities determined that the 
customs duty applicable to the imports was 0%, although, for the goods falling 
under TARIC subheading 7306 30 77 80, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 90.6% 
was to be applied, pursuant to Implementing Regulation 2015/110. The customs 
authorities also established that the appellant had previously carried out customs 
operations entailing similar goods and they consequently calculated additional 
duties corresponding to those earlier operations. 
5 In those circumstances, on 29 November 2017, the customs authorities issued a 
decision requiring the appellant to pay the total sum of RON 1 266 842 by way of 
anti-dumping duties, VAT adjustments, interest and late payment penalties. 
6 The appellant brought an administrative appeal seeking the annulment of that 
decision, which was dismissed by decision of 23 May 2018. The appellant 
therefore brought an action before the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, Sibiu) 
seeking, essentially, the annulment of that decision and of the decision of 
29 November 2017. In those proceedings, Hans Draser Internationales Marketing 
(‘the intervening appellant’) applied for leave to intervene in support of the 
appellant. 
7 That action was dismissed by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, Sibiu), which 
essentially agreed with the arguments put forward by the respondents in their 
defence, as outlined below. The judgment of the Tribunalul Sibiu (Regional Court, 
Sibiu) was then appealed before the referring court. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-99/20 
 
4  
Essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
8 The appellant maintains that the tubes at issue should be classified under tariff 
code 8302 41 90. It asserts that they are tubes for curtains that can bear only a 
light weight, that they are cut to precise dimensions, are painted in colours 
specific to metal rails for curtains, are wrapped individually and accompanied by 
the necessary accessories to make up curtain rails. The tubes and the accessories 
form a complete kit and were presented to customs in 2 116 parcels. It submits 
that it is apparent from all the above that the goods are intended for a specific use, 
that is, as curtain rails. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that the tubes could be used 
in the building sector or for plants, since, as is clear from the certificates of 
analysis issued by the central customs laboratory, they are not sufficiently thick to 
bear other materials. 
9 The decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is to be 
sought in their characteristics and objective properties as defined in the wording of 
the relevant heading of the CN and in the section or chapter notes of the CN. 
Therefore, even if the tubes in question are made from iron, steel or aluminium, 
what matters for their classification for customs purposes is not their composition, 
but their nature and intended use. 
10 The appellant also points out that, in other Member States, customs authorities 
have decided that the tubes at issue are curtain rails. In this connection, it has 
submitted to the tax authorities two binding tariff information decisions (‘BTI 
decisions’), issued successively to the intervening appellant by the German 
customs authorities and classifying the goods in question under tariff heading 
8302 41 90. In the appellant’s submission, those decisions are binding on the 
Romanian customs authorities, pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 2454/93 
and, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, they may be relied on 
as evidence by persons other than their addressees. 
11 The appellant considers that the tubes at issue cannot be classified under tariff 
heading 7306 30 77 because they are finished tubes, not unfinished tubes. In any 
event, even following the reasoning of the customs authorities, given that the 
goods in question are precision, finished tubes, they should be classified under the 
section ‘Tubes — precision tubes’, under tariff heading 7306 30 11 00, in which 
case, no anti-dumping duty would be applicable. 
12 Moreover, in the appellant’s opinion, given the characteristics of the tubes, 
Implementing Regulation 2015/110 does not apply in this case, inasmuch as, in 
accordance with recital 13 thereof, that regulation applies only to tubes for 
industrial use. 
13 The respondents maintain that, for the purposes of the tariff classification of the 
goods in question, the customs authorities relied on the information provided by 
the central customs laboratory. If there is any contradiction between that 
information and the information contained in other documents relating to the 
SIEBENBURGISCHES NUGAT 
 
5 
physical and chemical characteristics of the goods, it is the information provided 
by the central customs laboratory that must take precedence. 
14 The central customs laboratory established, essentially, that the tubes in question 
are round, metal tubes of various lengths, of between 16 mm and 25 mm in 
diameter and having a wall thickness of less than 2 mm. They are made from cold-
laminated steel sheets, are seam welded and are coated in paint or nickel-plated. 
The customs authorities also established that the tubes were individually wrapped 
in transparent plastic film, bore a label containing an item number and an EAN 
code, were described as ‘forged metal tubes’ and came in packs of 20 tubes of the 
same diameter but of different lengths and finishes. 
15 In the respondents’ opinion, the tubes cannot be classified under heading 8302: 
first of all, they were presented for customs clearance separately from the 
accessories and were identified separately in the commercial documents, that 
being the reason why they were assigned a different tariff classification. Had the 
appellant imported ‘the complete product’, comprising a tube, rings, two brackets 
and two end caps, it would have been possible to classify that product under code 
8302 41 90 00. 
16 In the second place, the Harmonised System Explanatory Note to heading 8302 
states, in the second subparagraph of section (D)5, that ‘Rods, tubes and bars, 
suitable for use as curtain or stair rods, etc., merely cut to length and drilled, 
remain classified according to the constituent metal’. The words ‘classified 
according to the constituent metal’ mean that the goods here at issue must be 
treated as common metal objects classified according to the metal from which 
they are made, and thus, in this case, under heading 7306. 
17 The respondents submit that, given the characteristics of the goods in question and 
the fact that the appellant cannot be regarded as having imported complete kits of 
metal curtain rods, the tubes at issue must be classified under heading 7306 30 77 
80. 
18 In so far as concerns the BTI decisions on which the appellant relies, the 
respondents assert that those decisions are valid only for import operations 
relating to goods that are in all respects the same as the goods described in the BTI 
decisions, carried out solely by the persons to whom those decisions were 
addressed, in which case they will be binding on all customs authorities in all the 
Member States. The appellant has not, however, produced documents to show that 
it is the addressee of a BTI decision for the goods which it has imported, and any 
reference to such a decision issued by the customs authorities of another Member 
State to a different company cannot be taken into consideration. Furthermore, 
when the BTI decisions produced by the appellant were issued, no laboratory 
analyses had been carried out for the purposes of classification, as they were in the 
present case. Those decisions were issued merely upon the request of the 
intervening appellant and have the status of declarations made under the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-99/20 
 
6  
intervening appellant’s own responsibility. They therefore have no legal relevance 
in the present case. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
19 The referring court states that the decisive matter in this case is which tariff 
heading is correct for the classification of goods described as ‘rail components for 
hanging curtains and drapes, or finished tubes (painted, nickel-plated, chromed)’. 
It will then be possible to determine, on the basis of the classification of the 
goods, what taxes the appellant must pay for importing them. 
20 Referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling is likely to 
provide guidance to the court and to the parties for the resolution of the case, 
particularly as there is no case-law on this specific issue.