23

In those circumstances the Administrativen sad – Varna decided to stay the proceedings in the four cases and referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, some of which are common to several cases and others unique to some of them: ‘(1) What is to be understood by the term “internet” within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the [CN] if it is used in relation to the classification of goods under … code 8528 71 13 (first question in Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11 and C‑382/11)? (2) What is to be understood by the term “modem” within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the [CN] if it is used in relation to the classification of goods under … code 8528 71 13 (second question in Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11 and C‑382/11)? (3) What is to be understood by the terms “modulation” and “demodulation” within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the [CN] if they are used in relation to the classification of goods under … code 8528 71 13 (third question in Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11 and C‑382/11)? (4) How are the terms “modem” and “access to the internet” to be interpreted for the purposes of subheading 8528 71 13 of the [CN] and the Explanatory Notes (first question in Case C‑383/11)? (5) What is the main function of the set-top box …, pursuant to which the tariff classification must be carried out: receipt of television signals or the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet (fourth question in Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11 and C‑382/11 and second question in Case C‑383/11)? (6) If the main function of the set-top box … is the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet, is the type of modulation and demodulation which the modem brings about or the type of modem used relevant to the tariff classification, or does it suffice that access to the internet is provided by means of the modem (fifth question in Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11 and C‑382/11 and third question in Case C‑383/11)? (7) Under which heading and which code should equipment corresponding to the description of the [set-top box] be classified (sixth question in Cases C‑320/11 and C‑330/11, seventh question in Case C‑382/11 and fifth question in Case C‑383/11)? (8) If a set-top box [such as that at issue in the main proceedings] is classified under subheading … 8521 90 00 of the [CN], is the application of a positive rate of customs duty lawful as a matter of Community law, if such classification would constitute a violation of the [European] Community’s obligations under the [ITA], or does classification under heading 8521 entail a conclusion that a set-top box [such as that at issue in the main proceedings] falls outside the scope of the relevant part of the [ITA] (seventh question in Cases C‑320/11 and C‑330/11 and eighth question in Case C‑382/11)? (9) Is it permissible for the customs authorities to amend the customs duty classification of a specific product without physically checking the imported product, and for the experts’ report to be issued exclusively on the basis of written evidence, namely the user manual, technical characteristics and inspection of a device made by the same manufacturer which has the same number from another imported consignment (sixth question in Case C‑382/11 and fourth question in Case C‑383/11)?’