112 AND 113/79 BAGUSAT V HAUPTZOLLAMT BERLIN-PACKHOF (( 1980 )) ECR 1159 ) THAT THE COUNCIL HAS CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION, ACTING IN COOPERATION WITH THE CUSTOMS EXPERTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, A WIDE POWER OF DISCRETION IN DEFINING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF TARIFF HEADINGS COMING INTO CONSIDERATION FOR CLASSIFICATION .
14 THEREFORE THE QUESTION ARISING IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER, IN ADOPTING REGULATION NO 3517/84, THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE POWER THEREBY CONFERRED UPON IT .
15 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT, AS APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT, THAT THE EXPRESSION "FLUE-CURED" DENOTES THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE TOBACCO HAS BEEN CURED AND THE TERM "VIRGINIA" DESIGNATES A PARTICULAR TYPE OF TOBACCO . AFTER HARVESTING, TOBACCO, WHICH IS GROWN IN A LARGE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES, IS FIRST CURED, THEN THRESHED AND FINALLY DRIED BEFORE BEING PACKED AND SHIPPED TO THE MANUFACTURER . NONE OF THOSE OPERATIONS CONSTITUTES A MANUFACTURING PROCESS .
16 IN THE THRESHING STAGE THE LEAF STEM, THE MAIN RIB WHICH BISECTS THE LEAF AND ATTACHES IT TO THE PLANT, IS SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE LEAF, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE LAMINA . IN THE PAST THE STEM USED TO BE DISCARDED AFTER THRESHING, BUT MODERN MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PERMITS BOTH THE STEM AND THE LAMINA TO BE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CIGARETTES . STEM ACCOUNTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 20% BY WEIGHT OF VIRGINIA TYPE TOBACCO .
17 IN VIEW OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, IMPERIAL TOBACCO LTD ARGUES THAT SUBHEADING 24.01 A OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE LAMINA OF THE TOBACCO IN QUESTION BUT ALSO THE STEMS, THERE BEING NO DOUBT OR LACUNA IN THAT RESPECT .
18 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT, IN SO FAR AS IT DOES NOT DEFINE "STEMS" OF TOBACCO LEAVES, HEADING NO 24.01 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF HAS GIVEN RISE TO DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS AND HENCE, AS APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT, UNTIL REGULATION NO 3517/84 WAS ADOPTED THE MEMBER STATES' PRACTICE WITH REGARD TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF STEM WAS NOT UNIFORM .
19 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE CRITICIZED FOR HAVING SOUGHT TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION IN WHICH THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF WAS NOT APPLIED UNIFORMLY .
20 FURTHERMORE, IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT, HAVING REGARD TO HEADING NO 24.01 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, WHICH IS AT ISSUE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS POWERS WHEN IT CLASSIFIED THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION AS TOBACCO REFUSE . IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THAT CONNECTION THAT, ACCORDING TO THE COURT' S CASE-LAW ( SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUDGMENT OF 15 FEBRUARY 1977 IN JOINED CASES 69 AND 70/76 DITTMEYER V HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-WALTERSHOF (( 1977 )) ECR 231, AND THE JUDGMENT OF 22 MARCH 1984 IN CASE 90/83 PATERSON AND OTHERS V W . WEDDEL & COMPANY (( 1984 )) ECR 1567 ), FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF THE TERM "REFUSE" DOES NOT REFER TO SUBSTANCES