Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:507
Date: 2023-06-22
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Netherlands

Summary  C-24/22 – 1 
Case C-24/22 
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:  
11 January 2022 
Referring court:  
Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
7 January 2022 
Applicant:  
PR Pet BV 
Defendant:  
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the inspecteur van de 
Belastingdienst/Douane (Inspector of the Tax and Customs Administration), 
rejecting the Combined Nomenclature (‘CN’) classifications selected by the 
applicant for the cat scratching posts at issue, and calculating customs duties on 
the basis of other CN classifications. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request for a preliminary ruling made under Article 267 TFEU concerns the 
question of the precise CN classification(s) of the cat scratching posts in question.  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must CN heading 9403 be interpreted as meaning that cat scratching posts, 
made up of a variety of materials, intended to be placed on the floor in (living) 
areas and to remain there so that cats can climb into them, sit on them, lie on them 
EN NL
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-24/22 
 
2  
and scratch them, are not covered by this CN heading because they are of a 
different nature as referred to in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014? If there is a different nature that precludes 
classification under CN heading 9403, what constitutes that different nature?  
2. Does the answer to question 1 have any implications for the validity of 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 
and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014?  
Provisions of European Union law relied on  
Combined Nomenclature (‘CN’), Chapters 44 (CN headings 4411 and 4421), 56 
(CN heading 5609), 63 (CN heading 6307) and 94 (CN headings 9401 and 9403); 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1229/2013 of 28 November 2013 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 350/2014 of 3 April 2014 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is engaged in the import and export and the sale of pet supplies, 
including cat scratching posts.  
2 In dispute is the classification of various models of cat scratching posts under the 
CN. These scratching posts differ from each other in both shape and covering 
materials.  
3 In the period 12 September 2016 to 28 August 2017, the applicant submitted, inter 
alia, seven declarations relating to the cat scratching posts referred to in 
paragraph 2. The 2016 declarations cited TARIC code 4421 9097 90, the 2017 
declarations cited TARIC code 4421 9999 99. 
4 Following an administrative control in 2017, the defendant determined that 
TARIC codes 6307 9098 90 and 5609 000 00 were applicable to the cat scratching 
posts for which the declarations had been made, and consequently issued a 
demand for payment in the amount of EUR 10 699.25 in respect of customs 
duties, against which the applicant raised an objection.  
5 After declaring the applicant’s objection unfounded, the defendant lodged an 
appeal against the objection with the referring court.  
PR PET 
 
3 
      
Essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
6 The applicant submits, primarily, that, by application of General Rule 1 for the 
interpretation of the CN, the cat scratching posts in question should be classified 
as furniture under Chapter 94 of the CN, more specifically, under CN heading 
9403 (‘Other furniture and parts thereof’) and CN heading 9401 [‘Seats (other 
than those of heading 9402), whether or not convertible into beds, and parts 
thereof’] respectively.  
7 That position is substantiated by the following arguments. Cat scratching posts are 
positioned on the ground, are placed in living areas and, together with other 
furniture, constitute the furnishings of those living areas. The term ‘furnishing’ is 
not defined in the CN. In common parlance, furnishing means ‘providing with 
household goods’. Cat scratching posts are part of the household effects. The 
placing of a cat scratching post in a living area also gives effect to the requirement 
set out in the explanatory notes to Chapter 94 of the HS that furnishing must 
primarily serve utilitarian purposes. In this regard, the applicant refers to a 
Binding Tariff Information issued by the German customs authority in 2020, in 
which an item of cat furniture almost identical to one of the cat scratching posts at 
issue here is classified under CN code 9401 6100.  
8 In the alternative, the applicant takes the position that the item at issue here is a 
composite item falling under CN heading 4421 (‘Other articles of wood’), and 
refers to a Binding Tariff Information issued by the Belgian customs authority in 
2019 in which an item of cat furniture intended for scratching, sitting and sleeping 
is classified under TARIC code 4421 9999 99.  
9 To the extent that Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1229/2013 and (EU) 
No 350/2014 (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the classification 
regulations’) – each of which classifies one particular type of cat scratching post 
under CN Code 6307 90 98 – play a role in the classification, the applicant 
submits, in brief, that those regulations cannot be correct because they were 
adopted on the basis of incorrect assumptions.  
10 The defendant argues that the cat scratching posts in question cannot be classified 
by applying General Rule 1 for the interpretation of the CN. There can be no 
question of classification as furniture under Chapter 94 of the CN because the 
goods are of a different nature to that of furniture intended for furnishing living 
quarters and other utilitarian purposes. They are, after all, products used by cats.  
11 Because of their composition – the cat scratching posts are made neither 
exclusively of fiberboard, wood, cardboard or plastic, nor exclusively of one kind 
of covering material – the goods in question are, according to the defendant, 
capable of classification under several headings. In accordance with General Rule 
3(b) for the interpretation of the CN, classification should be made according to 
the material which gives the goods in question their essential character. In 
practical terms, this means that the cat scratching posts in question should be 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-24/22 
 
4  
classified according to the covering material that is predominant, which is also 
confirmed by the classification regulations. The result is that the models largely 
covered in sisal rope or water hyacinth rope must be classified under TARIC code 
5609 00 00 00 and the models largely covered in plush are to be classified under 
TARIC code 6307 90 10 00.  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, in the interests of legal 
certainty and ease of control, the decisive criterion for the customs classification 
of goods must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, 
as defined in the relevant CN headings and in the notes to the sections and 
chapters (judgments of 19 May 1994, Siemens Nixdorf, C-11/93, paragraph 11, 
and of 18 December 1997, Techex, C-382/95, paragraph 11).  
13 Further in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the intended use of a 
product may constitute an objective criterion in relation to tariff classification if it 
is inherent in the product, and such inherent character must be capable of being 
assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties 
(judgment of 22 December 2010, Premis Medical, C-273/09, EU:C:2010:809, 
paragraph 43).  
14 Finally, it follows from the case-law of the Court that a classification regulation is 
general in scope and is applicable by analogy to goods which are sufficiently 
similar to the goods covered by that regulation (judgment of 13 September 2018, 
Vision Research Europe, C-372/17, EU:C:2018:708, paragraph 44). 
15 More specifically, with regard to the cat scratching posts at issue here, the 
referring court notes that they are intended to give cats a place of their own in a 
room, where they can stay (lie or sit), scratch with their nails and/or play on/in.  
16 Referring to the wording of CN headings 9403 and 9401 and the explanatory 
notes to Chapter 94 of the [HS], the referring court is of the view that it is 
defensible to classify the cat scratching posts at issue under CN headings 9403 
and 9401 respectively by application of General Rule 1 for the interpretation of 
the CN. However, that would ignore the classification regulations which, although 
not directly relied on by the defendant, cover sufficiently similar products and 
contain a statement of reasons for such classification which has been reproduced 
verbatim by the defendant in this case.  
17 It is not clear to the referring court on what grounds the classification regulations 
exclude a classification of the cat scratching posts referred to in those regulations 
as furniture under CN heading 9403 by virtue of the fact that that heading 
‘contains products of a different kind’, which results in a preliminary ruling being 
required. Indeed, the validity of those regulations is at issue.