Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:336
Date: 2020-04-30
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Translation C-810/18 — 1 
Case C-810/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
21 December 2018 
Referring court: 
Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovak Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 December 2018 
Appellant 
DHL Logistics (Slovakia), spol. s r.o. 
Respondent 
Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky 
  
ORDER 
The Krajský súd v Trnave (Regional Court, Trnava, Slovakia), in its capacity as 
an administrative court, [...] [composition of the bench], in the case between the 
appellant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia), spol. s r.o. [...] [registered office address] 
Senec, [...] [identification number, legal representative], and the respondent: 
Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Finance Directorate of the Slovak 
Republic) [...] [registered office address] Banská Bystrica, concerning the review 
of the lawfulness of Decision 78432/2017 issued by the respondent on 5 June 
2017, 
hereby decides: 
to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU with the 
following content: 
Must the wording of Combined Nomenclature subheading 8525 80 91 set out in 
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff 
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff resulting from 
the Explanatory Notes published pursuant to that regulation in 2011 (Commission 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2018 — CASE C-810/18 
 
2  
Communication 2001/C 137/01) be interpreted as meaning that goods such as the 
digital video camera recorders at issue in the present case may also be classified 
under that subheading even though they are capable of capturing and recording 
video images only of a quality of less than 800 x 600 pixels, specifically, 720 x 
576 pixels, given that their other function — the capturing and recording of still 
images — is limited to a still image quality of 1600 x 1200 pixels (1.92 
megapixels)? 
Grounds 
I. Facts 
1 On 13 November 2012 the appellant submitted 35 requests to the Colný úrad 
Trnava (Customs Office, Trnava, Slovakia) (‘the customs office’) for 
reimbursement of import duty as decided in the course of the customs procedure, 
whereby it requested, pursuant to Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2913/92 of 12 October [1992] establishing the Community Customs Code, as 
last amended (‘the Customs Code’), reimbursement of the import duty which had 
been established with regard to the goods identified in the customs declaration as 
‘digital video camera recorders’ and designated using the tariff code 8525 80 [Or. 
2] 91 00 of the corresponding Combined Nomenclature subheading of the 
Common Customs Tariff (‘the CN subheading’), considering in that regard that 
those goods should have been classified under CN subheading 8525 80 30 00, 
with a zero import duty rate, rather than under CN subheading 8525 80 91 00, 
which corresponds to a rate of import duty of 4.9%. The customs office, by [its] 
decisions [...] [reference numbers and dates of the decisions regarding the 
appellant’s requests for reimbursement of import duty], rejected the appellant’s 
requests and did not reimburse it for the import duty. The appellant lodged an 
appeal in respect of those decisions within the period prescribed by law. 
2 The respondent, by Decision 78432/2017 of 5 June 2017, acting in accordance 
with Paragraph 59(2) of zákon č. 71/1967 Zb. o správnom konaní (správny 
poriadok) (Law No 71/1967 on the administrative procedure, laying down the 
Code of Administrative Procedure) (‘the Code of Administrative Procedure’), as 
last amended, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decisions of the 
customs office and upheld those decisions. 
3 In its statement of reasons, the respondent stated that the customs office’s 
administrative decision at first instance regarding all 35 requests for 
reimbursement of import duty submitted by the appellant was based exclusively 
on the assessment of the correctness of the classification of the goods declared 
under the commercial designations SMX-C20, SMX-C24, SMX-C200, SMX-F40, 
SMX-F400, SMX-F43, SMX-F44, SMX-K40, SMX-K45, SMX-F50, SMX-F53, 
SMX-454, SMX-F500, SMX-F30, SMX-F33, SMX-F34, SMX-CIO, SMX-C1 
(‘the goods’) and indicated in the various customs declarations as ‘digital video 
camera recorders’ under the CN subheading corresponding to tariff code 
DHL LOGISTICS 
 
3 
8525 80 91 00, to which a rate of duty of 4.9% was applicable. Conversely, 
according to the appellant, from 2009 to 2012 the goods were incorrectly 
classified under CN subheading 8525 80 91 00, when they should have been 
classified as digital cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30 00, with a zero 
duty rate, which constitutes a ground for reimbursement of import duty. 
4 The present case concerns composite machines and it is therefore necessary to 
observe the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature 
(points 1 to 6 of Part A of Section I of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common 
Customs Tariff (‘Commission Regulation No 1549/2006’)), read in conjunction 
with the notes relating to points 3 to 5 of Section XVI, pursuant to which [Or. 3] 
the product must be classified according to its principal function and the 
classification must take place according to the wording of the relevant 
subheadings and related notes. 
5 The principal function of the imported goods is disputed between the parties to the 
main proceedings, in particular whether, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1231/2007 of 19 October 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods 
in the Combined Nomenclature (‘Regulation No 1231/2007’), they are digital 
cameras, the principal function of which is the capturing and recording of still 
images (CN subheading 8525 80 30 00 with a zero duty rate), or digital video 
camera recorders (camcorders), the principal function of which is the capturing 
and recording of video images (CN subheading 8525 80 91 00 with a rate of duty 
of 4.9%). 
6 On the basis of the classification of the goods under CN subheading 8525 80 30 
00, the appellant concluded that, as the general rules on the customs tariff do not 
deal in more detail with the issue of classification under the relevant CN 
subheading, it was necessary to apply the annex to Regulation No 1231/2007 in 
order to establish the principal function of the imported goods and that, in order to 
correctly classify those goods, the reasons set out in the third column of that annex 
were of decisive importance. The appellant makes reference, in particular, to the 
wording of the statement of reasons which appears in the third column in relation 
to point 4, according to which, ‘although the product has the design of a video 
camera recorder, has a zoom function during video recording and is capable of 
recording approximately 42 minutes of video using the resolution of 640 × 480 
pixels, the recording of the video remains a secondary function because the 
product can only capture and record video of a quality of less than 800 × 600 
pixels’, thus ‘within the meaning of Note 3 to Section XVI, the principal function 
of the camera is the capturing and recording of still images’. On that basis, the 
appellant claimed that the decisive criterion for the classification of goods as 
‘digital cameras’ is the maximum level of quality of the video recording, which 
must not exceed 800 x 600 pixels. Accordingly, the imported goods, the 
maximum video recording quality of which is 720 x 576 pixels, are digital 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2018 — CASE C-810/18 
 
4  
cameras, the principal function of which consists in the capturing and recording of 
still images and not in the recording of video sequences. 
7 For its part, the respondent bases the classification of the goods as digital video 
camera recorders (camcorders) under CN subheading 8525 80 91 00 on the 
assertion that the products declared by the appellant have a low resolution for still 
images (only 1600 x 1200 pixels (1.92 megapixels), and even, for some models, 
only 800 x 600 pixels) — ‘low resolution’ having the meaning given by 
Commission [Implementing] Regulation (EU) No 458/2014 of 29 April 2014 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature 
(‘Regulation No 458/2014’) –, so that it cannot validly be asserted that their 
principal function is the capturing and recording of still images. At the same time, 
the respondent has emphasised that the only criterion for classification as digital 
cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30 fulfilled by those goods is the 
resolution, which is less than 800 x 600 pixels. 
II. Legislative context  
8 In making the reference, the referring court has relied on the fact that the present 
case concerns composite machines and that, accordingly, under the general rules 
[Or. 4] for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (points 1 to 6 of Part 
A of Section I of Commission Regulation No 1549/2006), read in conjunction 
with Note 3 to Section XVI, the product must be classified taking into account its 
principal function and the classification must take place according to the wording 
of the relevant subheadings and related notes. In the present case, the CN 
subheadings under consideration are 8525 80 30 — Digital cameras, and 
8525 80 91 — Video camera recorders. 
9 Part One of Commission Regulation No 1549/2006 contains preliminary 
provisions. In Title I of that part, which relates to general rules, Part A, entitled 
‘General rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature’, establishes 
in points 1 and 6 thereof that classification of goods in the Combined 
Nomenclature is to be governed by the following principles: ‘1. The titles of 
sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for 
legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the 
headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or 
notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions. [...] 6. For 
legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be 
determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related 
subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding 
that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this 
rule, the relative section and chapter notes also apply, unless the context requires 
otherwise’. 
10 Part Two of Commission Regulation No 1549/2006 contains Section XVI, entitled 
‘Machinery and mechanical appliances; electrical equipment; parts thereof; sound 
DHL LOGISTICS 
 
5 
recorders and reproducers, television image and sound recorders and reproducers, 
and parts and accessories of such articles’. Note 3 to that section is worded as 
follows: ‘Unless the context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting of 
two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines 
designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative 
functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being 
that machine which performs the principal function’. 
11 According to the statement of reasons for classifying goods as digital cameras 
under CN subheading 8525 80 30 set out in Regulation No 1231/2007, ‘although 
the product has the design of a video camera recorder, has a zoom function during 
video recording and is capable of recording approximately 42 minutes of video 
using the resolution of 640 × 480 pixels, the recording of the video remains a 
secondary function because the product can only capture and record video of a 
quality of less than 800 × 600 pixels’, thus ‘within the meaning of Note 3 to 
Section XVI, the principal function of the camera is the capturing and recording of 
still images’. 
12 According to the statement of reasons for classifying goods as video camera 
recorders under CN subheading 8525 80 91 set out in Regulation No 1231/2007, 
‘classification is determined by General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the 
Combined Nomenclature, Note 3 to Section XVI and [Or. 5] the wording of CN 
codes 8525, 8525 80 and 8525 80 91. [...] Within the meaning of Note 3 to 
Section XVI, the principal function of the camera is the capturing and recording of 
video, because it can record video of a higher quality than 800 × 600 pixels for 
approximately 42 minutes using the resolution of 1 280 × 720 pixels, at 30 frames 
per second’. 
13 According to the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the 
European Union (2011/C 137/01) (‘the Explanatory Notes’) relating to CN 
subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 (Video camera recorders), ‘digital 
cameras are excluded from these subheadings if they are not capable, using the 
maximum storage capacity, of recording, in a quality of 800 × 600 pixels (or 
higher) at 23 frames per second (or higher) at least 30 minutes in a single 
sequence of video’. 
14 According to the Explanatory Notes relating to CN subheading 8525 80 30 
(Digital cameras), ‘cameras remain classified in this subheading unless they are 
capable, using the maximum storage capacity, of recording, in a quality of 800 × 
600 pixels (or higher) at 23 frames per second (or higher) at least 30 minutes in a 
single sequence of video’. 
15 It is apparent from the wording of the decisions at first instance that they concern 
products — digital video camera recorders — marked with the model codes SMX-
C20BP/EDC, SMX-C20LP/EDC, SMX-C20RP/EDC, SMX-C24BP/EDC and 
SMX-F40RP/EDC and having the following technical parameters, as indicated in 
the response from the Colný úrad Bratislava, oddelenie colných taríf (Customs 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2018 — CASE C-810/18 
 
6  
Office, Bratislava, Customs Duties Department) of 7 February 2013: they are 
digital devices in which video recordings and still images are stored on a memory 
card; they record videos of a quality of 720 x 576 pixels using a scanning 
frequency of 50 frames per second; the length of the recording depends on the 
memory card inserted, but generally speaking such devices are capable of 
recording over 30 minutes of continuous footage; the maximum quality of still 
images is 1600 x 1200 pixels. 
III. Reasons for the reference 
16 The referring court considers that there are grounds, in the present case, for 
referring the question set out in the operative part of the present order to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union. First of all, it must be emphasised that the case 
concerns composite machines with two functions, and it is not possible to 
establish which of them is the principal function by reference to the statement of 
reasons for the classification of goods under individual subheadings. Both 
functions could be regarded as the principal function; both the capturing and 
recording of still images, which would justify classifying the product as a digital 
camera under CN subheading 8525 80 30, with a zero duty rate, and the capturing 
and recording of video, which would justify classifying the product as a digital 
video camera recorder under CN subheading 8525 80 91, with a rate of duty of 
4.9%. The dispute between the parties to the main proceedings has arisen because 
the appellant has requested, pursuant to Article 236 of the Customs Code, 
reimbursement of the import duty established and paid in respect of the products 
designated in the customs declaration form as ‘digital video camera recorders’ and 
marked with the code corresponding to CN subheading 8525 80 91 00, [Or. 6] 
considering that, under the binding tariff information (‘the BTI’) issued in respect 
of identical products in various Member States of the European Union, such as the 
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France, such products should instead be 
classified as digital cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30. From the contents 
of the administrative case file it is also apparent that the customs authorities of the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom granted the request submitted by Samsung 
Electronics Benelux B.V. and Samsung Electronics UK Ltd. for reimbursement of 
import duty in respect of products identical to those at issue in the present case, so 
that it is necessary to guarantee identical treatment for identical products, 
especially with regard to their classification in the Combined Nomenclature 
(translation of Decision 11/42/14896/141 of the Netherlands customs authorities 
of 12 October 2011 regarding reimbursement of the duty on cameras, translation 
of Decision 11/42/11457/141 of the Netherlands customs authorities of 3 October 
2011 regarding reimbursement of the duty on cameras, translation of Decision 
11/42/12405/141 of the Netherlands customs authorities of 5 October 2011 
regarding reimbursement of the duty on cameras, and Decision 13115/11 of the 
United Kingdom customs authorities of 28 April 2011 regarding reimbursement of 
the duty on DVR cameras). The referring court also reproduces the BTI list 
included in the appellant’s appeal against the decisions at first instance: NLRTD-
2010-001064-SMX-C24, NLRTD-2010-001061-SMX-F40, NLRTD-2010-
DHL LOGISTICS 
 
7 
001062-SMX-F44, NLRTD-2011-000504-SMX-F34, NLRTD-2011-000507-BTI 
SMX-F40, NLRTD-2011-000505-SMX-F44, NLRTD-2011-000508-SMX-F400, 
NLRTD-2011-000509-SMX-C200, NLRTD-2011-000510-SMX-F400, 
GB500739570-SMX-C20, GB500733784-SMX-F30SP, GB500742391-SMX-
F40, GB500733490-SMX-K40, GB500733588-VP-DX2050, FR-PRO-2010-
000295-SMX-C-20, FR-PRO-2010-000290-SMX-C200, FR-PRO-2009-000304-
SMX-F30, FR-PRO-2009-000308-SMX-F33, FR-PRO-2009-000310-SMX-F34, 
FR-PRO-2010-000291-SMX-F40, FR-PRO-2010-000308-SMX-F44, FR-PRO-
2011-000366-SMX-F50, FR-PRO-2011-005158- SMX-F54, FR-PRO-2010-
000289-SMX-F400, FR-PRO-2011-000367-SMX-F500, FR-PRO-2009-000298-
VP-DX200, FR-PRO-2009-000409-VP-DX205, FR-PRO-2008-000901-VP-
MX25; in this regard, according to the appellant, none of the above BTI has been 
revoked on the ground of an incorrect classification of the product. 
17 As regards the product in respect of which the appellant is requesting 
reimbursement of the duty, the referring court considers that it has been 
established that the quality of the still images is 1600 x 1200 pixels (1.92 
megapixels) and, for some models, 800 x 600 pixels, that the video quality is 720 
x 576 pixels and the video recording speed is 50 frames per second, and that the 
product has a zoom function during video recording. Therefore, the referring court 
concludes from the foregoing that, with the exception of one parameter (maximum 
video quality), the goods meet all the requirements for classification as video 
camera recorders (camcorders) under CN subheading [85]25 80 91 or 8525 80 99. 
On the other hand, however, those same goods fulfil the criterion regarded as 
fundamental for classification as digital cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30 
(a quality of less than 800 x 600 pixels). 
18 The referring court also makes reference to Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 458/2014 of 29 April 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods 
in the Combined Nomenclature, which entered into force on 26 May 2014, 
following long years of debate and negotiations regarding the inconsistency of the 
binding [tariff] information in applying the rules of the Nomenclature to the goods 
in question. That regulation unequivocally excludes the classification of those 
goods as digital cameras under CN subheading 8525 80 30, but it is not applicable 
in the present case [Or. 7] in view of the prohibition on the retroactive application 
of legislation in the field of taxation (judgment of the Court of 17 July 2014, 
Panasonic Italia SpA and Others v Agenzia delle Dogane di Milano (C-472/12, 
EU:C:2014:2082)). The referring court also states that it has carefully examined 
the available case-law of the Court of Justice, comparing the judgment of the 
Court of 5 June 2008 in Case C-312/07 regarding the interpretation of CN 
subheadings 8525 40 91 and 8525 40 99 with another judgment of 27 September 
2007 in Joined Cases C-208/06 and C-209/06, but that the criteria analysed in 
those judgments are not relevant to the present decision. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2018 — CASE C-810/18 
 
8  
IV. Conclusion 
19 Having regard to the grounds set out above, the referring court has come to the 
conclusion that it is necessary to submit a request to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling in the present case. Accordingly, acting 
in accordance with Paragraph 100(1)(c) of the Code of Administrative Procedure 
and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the 
administrative-law proceedings are hereby stayed. [...] 
[...] [national rules of procedure] 
Trnava, 3 December 2018 
[names of the President and Members of the division concerned and of the 
Registrar] [Or. 8]