Case C-362/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VII ème arrondissement de Paris (France), lodged on 2 August 2007 — Kip Europe SA, KIP UK Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH v Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, interpretation of the law, printer

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France),
lodged on 2 August 2007 — Kip Europe SA, KIP UK Ltd,
Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH v Administration des
douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits
indirects

essential character’ and its effect would be to classify printers
of the kind described under heading 9009 12 00?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 70, p. 9).

(Case C-362/07)

(2007/C 269/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kip Europe SA, Kip UK Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV,
Utax GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France),
lodged on 2 August 2007 — Hewlett Packard International
SARL v Administration des douanes — Direction générale
des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-363/07)

(2007/C 269/43)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des
douanes et droits indirects

Referring court

Questions referred

1. Does the copy function of a multifunction apparatus of the
kind described in these proceedings, designed to operate
through a direct connection or a network with one or more
computers, but capable, as regards the copying function only,
of operating autonomously, constitute a 'specific function
other than data processing' within the meaning of Note 5(E)
to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature?

the existence of

2. In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question,
specific function, which is
that
does
expressly acknowledged not to give the product its essential
character, mean that classification in Chapter 84, pursuant to
Note 5(E), is to be excluded, despite the existence of printing
and scanner functions associated with data processing?

3. If that is the case, and in relation to equipment made up of
three materially distinct modules
scanner and
computer), should the classification not be made on the basis
of General Rule 3(b)?

(printer,

4. More generally, on a correct interpretation of the Harmo-
nised System and of
the Combined Nomenclature, must
printers of the kind described in this procedure be classified
under heading 8471 60 or 9009 12 00?

5. Is

the

case

it not

that Commission Regulation (EC)
No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 (1) is invalid, in particular
because it is contrary to the Harmonised System, to the
Combined Nomenclature and to Rules 1 and 3(b) of the
General Rules for
the Harmonised
the Interpretation of
System and the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as it relies
on the concept of a ‘function that gives the apparatus its

Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett Packard International SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des
douanes et droits indirects,

Questions referred

1. Does the copy function of a multifunction apparatus of the
kind described in these proceedings, designed to operate
through a direct connection or a network with one or more
computers, but capable, as regards the copying function only,
of operating autonomously, constitute a ‘specific function
other than data processing’ within the meaning of Note 5(E)
to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature?

the existence of

2. In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question,
does
specific function, which is
that
expressly acknowledged not to give the product its essential
character, mean that classification in Chapter 84, pursuant to
Note 5(E), is to be excluded despite the existence of printing
and scanner functions associated with data processing?

3. If that is the case, and in relation to equipment made up of
two materially distinct modules (printer and scanner), should
the classification not be made on the basis of General
Rule 3(b)?