7.

For the purpose of classifying “seasoned” turkey-meat under customs heading 16.02 the proof of seasoning must therefore be obtained on the basis of objective criteria without having recourse to taste. Therefore, by implication, the second question of the Finanzgericht which, as will be remembered, sought to ascertain “according to which criteria is the existence of the taste to be ascertained”, becomes superfluous. I should like to devote some words to this point as well for the support which may be derived therefrom regarding the justification of the objective method in the proof of seasoning. The Commission argues that the customs authorities are well able to establish whether the goods are “seasoned” and proposes that the Court state that “proof of taste should be furnished in accordance with the possibilities of perception of the average customs official”. However, that opinion must be rejected in the clearest way possible for two reasons. I have already dwelt on the first reason; sensitivity to taste is a criterion which is too much dependent on geography, physiology and anthropology (I am thinking of culinary habits) to be reliable. As is borne out by the German customs treatment to which I alluded just now, it may give divergent results within the same Member State and certainly within the whole of the Community. Nor let it be said that, for the purposes of uniform customs classification, it is possible to use the concept of the “average” taste of Community citizens. An argument of that kind would be absurd. And because of its complexity the argument put forward in the alternative by Dinter that, as it is impossible for the average customs official to provide proof of taste, it should be entrusted to a group of independent persons representing the various peoples of the Community, is also absurd and impractical. Second argument. Community citizens are perhaps strange in their age-old but well-established habit of eating their escalopes and rolled turkey roasted or at least cooked. Not even the hungriest or most rustic of them would be tempted by it raw and frozen as it is submitted for customs clearance. To appraise the taste therefore the average customs official in which the Commission puts its faith would be forced to cook the meat and that would be a breach of the general principle of tariff classification which requires that the goods be appraised in the state in which they are when submitted for customs clearance. Recently on the other hand the Court was asked to have recourse to the perceptive capacity of the average customs official or of experts. The Court was asked to interpret a note in the Common Customs Tariff regarding “textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives” which provides, as I have already said, for the criterion of perception with the naked eye. The Court ruled that “although the Common Customs Tariff constitutes a measure of Community law to be interpreted uniformly in all Member States, its application is entrusted to the States”. Accordingly “it is for the Member States to designate the authorities and persons required to undertake the tariff classification of products and to decide their training in order to enable them properly to fulfil such tasks” (judgment of the Court of 30 September 1982 in Case 317/81 [1982] ECR 3257, mentioned above, at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision).