35

In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Are the goods — rolled-up strips of non-woven fabric for the production of interior blinds — to be assigned to CN code 5407 61 30 in accordance with the characteristics of the goods as “woven fabric” or CN code 6303 92 10 corresponding to their sole intended purpose — for interior blinds — for the purposes of tariff classification according to the [CN], taking the following into consideration: (a) the term “made-up” article within the meaning of Note 7 to Chapter 63 (“Other made-up textile articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles; rags”) in Section XI (“Textiles and textile articles”) of the [CN], interpreted in conjunction with point 2(a) of the general rules of interpretation concerning the terms “incomplete or unfinished article” having regard to the case mentioned in point 2(c) of the note, the characteristics of the goods at issue in the present proceedings and the possibility that a single end-product is produced from them; (b) the question of whether the term “woven fabrics” in Chapter 54, subheading 5407 61 30, of the [CN] covers fabric strips, which, like the end-product forming their single intended purpose — interior blinds —, also come with fixed edges on the long side, having regard also to the express reference to that product in subheading 6303 92 10 of the [CN]? 2. May it reasonably be supposed that a legitimate expectation with regard to the tariff classification of the goods arose for the declarant and person responsible for the importation of the goods and that, in accordance with Article 71(2) of [the Customs Code] and having regard to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the tariff code of the goods stated in the customs declaration is to be applied if, according to the facts of the case in the main proceedings, the situation at the date of the making of the customs declaration was as follows: (a) with respect to an earlier customs declaration of identical goods with the same tariff code, after a physical examination of the goods by the customs authorities including a check of the tariff classification, recorded in a report, no samples were taken for analysis and the conclusion was drawn that the goods corresponded to the declaration; (b) no later examination took place after the release of the goods in the case of five other customs declarations declaring identical goods with the same tariff code, made earlier, both before and after the date of the report of the customs examination finding that the tariff code corresponded? 3. Is Article 243(1) of [the Customs Code], having regard to observance of the principle of res judicata, to be interpreted as meaning that an appeal can be brought against an act under Article 232(1)(a) of that code only if the act was adopted on the ground of a payment not being made within the period prescribed, and at the same time establishes the amount of import duty, and constitutes an enforceable order for the collection of the duty under the national law of the Member State? 4. Are Articles 41(2)(a) and 47 of the [Charter] to be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for the taking of evidence by means of an independent expert’s report, requested by the debtor after receipt of a communication in accordance with Article 221(1) of [the Customs Code], was not expressly responded to by the customs authorities and was not mentioned in the grounds for later decisions, there is an irremediable infringement of the right to good administration and the rights of the defence in administrative proceedings, which can no longer be remedied in the judicial proceedings because in the circumstances of the main proceedings, it is only before the court of first instance that the person concerned has the chance to prove his objections regarding the tariff classification of the goods by putting questions to an independent expert?’