Case C-372/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Community Customs Code — Implementing measures — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferential origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of substantial processing or working — Added value test — Validity and interpretation — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and Decision No 1/95 of the Association Council — Interpretation)
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, agreement (EU), customs regulations, interpretation of the law, originating product, television equipment

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December
2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Asda
Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs

(Case C-372/06) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Implementing measures —
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferen-
tial origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of
substantial processing or working — Added value test —
Validity and interpretation — EEC-Turkey Association Agree-
ment and Decision No 1/95 of the Association Council —
Interpretation)

(2008/C 51/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asda Stores Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue
Customs

and

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
London — Validity of Annex 11 to Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1) — Criteria for determining the non-preferential origin of
goods — Television receivers manufactured in Turkey incorpor-
ating cathode-ray tubes originating in China or Korea.

Operative part of the judgment

1) Examination of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of
affecting the validity of the provisions in column 3 under heading
8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, mentioned in Annex 11 to
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
Code.

in Annex

2) The provisions in column 3 under heading 8528 of the Combined
Nomenclature, mentioned
to Regulation
No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating
the value acquired by colour television receivers on their manufac-
ture in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings, there is no cause to determine separately the non-preferential
origin of a distinct part, such as a chassis.

11

3) The provisions of Article 44 of Decision No 1/95 of

the
EEC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, which
laid down the conditions for the entry into force of the final phase
read in conjunction with those of
of
signed on
the Additional Protocol,
Article 47(1)

the Customs Union,
to (3) of

signed

at Ankara

23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and
confirmed on behalf of
the Community by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, annexed to the
establishing an Association between the European
Agreement
Economic Community
on
and Turkey
12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one part,
and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the
other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
1963, and the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the said Deci-
sion No 1/95 do not have direct effect before national courts and
do not therefore allow individual operators validly to plead their
infringement in order to resist payment of anti-dumping duties
normally due. The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95
have direct effect and the individuals to whom they apply have the
right to rely on them before the courts of the Member States.

4) The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95 must be inter-
preted as not requiring that the information which the contracting
parties which adopted anti-dumping measures must provide to the
Customs Union Joint Committee pursuant to Article 46 of Deci-
sion No 1/95 or
to
Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol, must be brought to the
knowledge of operators.

to the Association Council pursuant

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Judgment of
the Court (First Chamber) of 13 Decem-
ber 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG
Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Biele-
feld

(Case C-374/06) (1)

(Preliminary reference — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of
laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Products subject to excise
duty — Tax markings — Irregular departure from a suspen-
sion arrangement — Theft — Release for consumption in the
Member State of the theft — Non-reimbursement of the tax
markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen
products)

(2008/C 51/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld