61971CJ0030_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 30/71
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE IIIRD SENATE OF THE FINANZGERICHT MUENCHEN IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
KURT SIEMERS AND COMPANY, 40 NEUER WALL, HAMBURG 36, UNDERTAKING BELONGING TO KURT GUENTER WILLI SIEMERS, HAMBURG,
AND
HAUPTZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL,
Subject of the case
- ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 ( OJ L 172, P . 1 );
- ON THE APPLICABILITY AND, IF APPROPRIATE, INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 241/70 OF THE COMMISSION OF 9 FEBRUARY 1970 ( OJ L 32, P . 6 );
- IF APPROPRIATE, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 160/66 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 OCTOBER 1966 ( OJ 195, P . 3361 ),
Grounds
1 BY ORDER DATED 27 MAY 1971, WHICH ARRIVED AT THE COURT ON 15 JUNE 1971, THE FINANZGERICHT MUENCHEN, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, HAS SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING TWO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 ON THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( OJ 1968, L 172 ). THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNS THE INTERPRETATION OF HEADINGS 21.04 AND 21.07 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND THE EFFECT OF REGULATION NO 241/70 OF THE COMMISSION OF 9 FEBRUARY 1970 ( OJ 1970, L 32 ) ON THE APPLICATION OF THESE HEADINGS TO IMPORTS EFFECTED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS REGULATION, AND THE SECOND RELATES TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF VERBINDLICHE ZOLLTARIFAUSKUENFTE ( BINDING CUSTOMS TARIFF NOTICES ) ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE GERMAN ZOLLGESETZ ( CUSTOMS LAW ) WITH REGULATION NO 950/68 .
THE FIRST QUESTION
2 THE FIRST QUESTION SEEKS IN THE FIRST PLACE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT MAKES " ANY DIFFERENCE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRODUCT DESCRIBED AS " DIET-MAYONNAISE " UNDER HEADING 21.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF WHETHER THE PRODUCT HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED BY USING BUTTER, BUTTER FAT OR FRACTIONATED BUTTER OIL, AND IF SO, WHAT DIFFERENCE ". THEN IT IS ASKED WHETHER THE TARIFF CLASSIFICATION DEPENDS ON TRADE USAGE ( VERKEHRSAUFFASSUNG ) OR ON THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 241/70 WHICH DID NOT COME INTO FORCE UNTIL AFTER THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION .
3 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE THAT THE DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER HEADING 21.04 ( SAUCES; MIXED CONDIMENTS AND MIXED SEASONINGS ) OR HEADING 21.07 ( FOOD PREPARATIONS NOT ELSEWHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED ) OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF . THE IMPORTS WERE MADE ON 30 MAY AND 9 JULY 1968, THE FIRST, THEREFORE, BEFORE 1 JULY 1968, THE DATE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF . NEVERTHELESS, AT THE DATE OF THIS IMPORT THE PRODUCTS OF HEADING 21.07 OF THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE WERE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS NO 160/66/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 OCTOBER 1966 ESTABLISHING A MARKETING SYSTEM FOR CERTAIN GOODS DERIVED FROM THE PROCESSING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . THUS THE QUESTION PUT MAY IN THIS RESPECT BE INTERPRETED AS RELATING TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HEADING 21.07, INCORPORATED IN THIS REGULATION, AND HEADING 21.04 .
4 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UNIFORM INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE OF 1950, WHICH THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF HAS ADOPTED, ARTICLES III AND IV OF THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION PROVIDE THAT A NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE SHALL PREPARE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION NOTICES UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL .
5 SINCE THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES HAD NOT ISSUED ANY EXPLANATORY PROVISIONS OR OTHER MORE DETAILED PROVISIONS REGARDING HEADING 21.04 AT THE TIME OF THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION, THE ABOVEMENTIONED EXPLANATORY NOTES AND CLASSIFICATION NOTICES MUST BE REGARDED AS AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS TARIFF HEADING . THE RELEVANT BRUSSELS EXPLANATORY NOTES HAVE THE FOLLOWING WORDING : " UNDER THIS HEADING COME PREPARATIONS, GENERALLY STRONGLY SEASONED, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE FLAVOUR OF CERTAIN FOODS ( IN PARTICULAR, MEAT AND FISH ) AND ARE MANUFACTURED FROM VARIOUS SUBSTANCES ( EGGS, VEGETABLES, FRUITS, FLOUR, STARCHES, OIL, VINEGAR, SUGAR, SPICES, MUSTARD, FLAVOURING, ETC .). SUCH PREPARATIONS MAY BE MORE OR LESS LIQUID - THIS APPLIES ESPECIALLY TO SAUCES - OR IN POWDER FORM AND PACKAGED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER ( IN BOTTLES, GLASSES, JARS, ETC ., AND ALSO HERMETICALLY SEALED ) ". THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE NOTES TO HEADING 21.04 MENTIONS EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTS COMING UNDER THIS HEADING AND IN THE FIRST PLACE MENTIONS MAYONNAISE .
6 ACCORDING TO THESE EXPLANATORY NOTES THE PRODUCTS COVERED BY HEADING 21.04 ARE CHARACTERIZED BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY SPICED AND INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE FLAVOUR OF FOOD . THUS SUCH PRODUCTS MUST BE PREPARATIONS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY SUITABLE FOR THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED .
7 CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF BUTTER, BUTTER FAT OR FRACTIONATED BUTTER OIL TO THESE PRODUCTS, WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY PER SE PRECLUDE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRODUCT UNDER HEADING 21.04, IS OF DECISIVE IMPORTANCE IN SO FAR AS IT IS CAPABLE OF IMPAIRING THE FLAVOUR-IMPROVING QUALITIES OF THESE PRODUCTS . WHETHER THIS IS THE CASE THE APPROPRIATE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MUST DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE FACTUAL DATA CONNECTED WITH THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE OR THE COMPOSITION OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION .
8 REGULATION NO 241/70 CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS IMPORTED BEFORE ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE . THIS REGULATION, WHICH MAKES DETAILED PROVISION FOR THE CONDITIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION UNDER HEADING 21.07, IS OF A LEGISLATIVE NATURE AND CANNOT HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT .
9 IT MUST THEREFORE BE ANSWERED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRODUCT UNDER HEADING 21.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IS PRECLUDED IF THE USE OF BUTTER, BUTTER FAT OR FRACTIONATED BUTTER OIL IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT IMPAIRS ITS DIRECT SUITABILITY FOR IMPROVING THE FLAVOUR OF CERTAIN FOODS . IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS THE CASE .
THE SECOND QUESTION
10 THE COURT IS ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF CAN IMPAIR THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF VERBINDLICHE ZOLLTARIFAUSKUENFTE ( BINDING CUSTOMS TARIFF NOTICES ) ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE GERMAN ZOLLGESETZ .
11 THIS PROVISION STIPULATES THAT THE OBERFINANZDIREKTIONEN, ON APPLICATION, SHALL ISSUE BINDING CUSTOMS TARIFF NOTICES REGARDING THE TARIFF HEADING OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF TO WHICH A PRODUCT BELONGS . ON THE ONE HAND, IT IS PROVIDED THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE AMENDMENT OR ANNULMENT OF THE NOTICE, FOR THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER THE APPLICANT MAY STILL DEMAND TARIFF CLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE, IN SO FAR AS THE NOTICE IS NOT BASED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT . ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE NOTICE SHALL CEASE TO HAVE BINDING EFFECT IF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLIED IN IT ARE AMENDED .
12 ALTHOUGH SUCH A TARIFF CLASSIFICATION IN ADVANCE IS NOT FOUND IN COMMUNITY LAW, IT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THAT LAW . THE SECURITY WHICH IT PROVIDES FOR IMPORTERS AND THE FACILITATION OF WORK WHICH IT INVOLVES FOR THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY INDUCE THESE AUTHORITIES TO USE SUCH A PROCEDURE GOVERNED BY THEIR NATIONAL LAW . THIS IS ALL THE MORE SO WHERE THE NOTICES IN NO WAY LAY DOWN LEGAL RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND FIT INTO THE FRAMEWORK OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE TARIFF CLASSIFICATION PROVISIONS TO INDIVIDUAL CASES .
13 ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL HAS NOT AFFECTED THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF VERBINDLICHE ZOLLTARIFAUSKUENFTE ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE GERMAN ZOLLGESETZ .
Decision on costs
14 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Endorsements
ON THOSE GRUNDS,
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 177;
HAVING REGARD TO REGULATIONS NOS 160/66 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 OCTOBER 1966 AND 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 AND REGULATION NO 242/70 OF THE COMMISSION OF 9 FEBRUARY 1970;
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 20;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Operative part
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE ORDER DATED 27 MAY 1971 OF THE FINANZGERICHT MUENCHEN, HEREBY RULES :
1 . THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PRODUCT UNDER HEADING 21.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IS PRECLUDED IF THE USE OF BUTTER, BUTTER FAT OR FRACTIONATED BUTTER OIL IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT IMPAIRS ITS DIRECT SUITABILITY FOR IMPROVING THE FLAVOUR OF CERTAIN FOODS . IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS THE CASE .
2 . THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 950/68 OF THE COUNCIL HAS NOT AFFECTED THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF VERBINDLICHE ZOLLTARIFAUSKUENFTE ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE GERMAN ZOLLGESETZ .