Case C-206/03

Commissioners of Customs & Excise

v

SmithKline Beecham plc

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Nicotine patches – Force in law of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)

Order of the Court (First Chamber), 19 January 2005

Summary of the Order

1. Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Interpretation – Recourse to classification opinions of the World Customs Organisation – Limits

2. Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Nicotine patches – Product for therapeutic or prophylactic use – Classification under Heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature relating to medicaments

3. Common customs tariff – Classification of goods – Incorrect binding tariff information – Requirement that national courts should ensure that the information is annulled and that information consistent with Community law is issued – Scope

(Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 12(5))

1. Having regard to the classification of a given product in the Combined Nomenclature drawn up by the Community legislature, a classification opinion issued by the World Customs Organisation on the classification of that product in its harmonised system for the description and coding of commodities has no legally binding force and is no more than an indication assisting in the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings of the Combined Nomenclature. If such a classification opinion is contrary to the wording of the heading in the Combined Nomenclature, it must therefore be disregarded.

(see para. 28)

2. The Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that nicotine patches which present clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human body and which are individually packaged in aluminium pouches and packed for sale in weekly packs together with instructions are to be classified as ‘medicaments’ under heading 3004.

(see paras 36, 39, 48, operative part 1)

3. If a competent authority has issued incorrect binding tariff information, a national court is required under Article 10 EC to take, within the sphere of its competence, all the measures necessary to ensure that that information is annulled and that new binding tariff information, consistent with Community law, is issued.

In that context, the procedure for and the effects of the decisions adopted by the national court hearing the action fall, within the bounds set by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, within the ambit of domestic law.

In that regard, it is not contrary to Article 12(5) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code for a national court to annul a decision of a customs authority which, while it is consistent with a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation, fails to take account of the Combined Nomenclature drawn up by the Community legislature and to declare that goods must be classified otherwise than in accordance with that classification opinion.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)