. 12 ) THE COUNCIL CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION , ACTING IN CO-OPERATION 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 . THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS THEREFORE WHETHER REGULATION NO 1709/74 HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE TERMS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
11 WHILST IT IS TRUE , AS THE APPELLANTS IN THE MAIN ACTIONS POINT OUT , THAT NOTE 1 ( A ) IN CHAPTER 20 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF STATES THAT THE CHAPTER DOES NOT INCLUDE FRUIT PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY PROCESSES LISTED IN CHAPTER 8 , IT STILL FOLLOWS FROM THE WORDING OF HEADING 08.11 , THE ONLY HEADING IN THAT CHAPTER WHICH CAN COME INTO CONSIDERATION AS REGARDS THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GOODS , THAT IT COVERS PROVISIONALLY PRESERVED FRUIT , PROVIDED , HOWEVER , THAT IN THAT STATE IT IS UNSUITABLE FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION .
12 IT FOLLOWS THAT FRUIT PROVISIONALLY PRESERVED CANNOT COME UNDER HEADING 08.11 IF IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESERVATION PROCESS USED HAS NOT RESULTED IN MAKING IT UNSUITABLE FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION IN THAT STATE . WHETHER OR NOT THE GOODS AT ISSUE ARE TO UNDERGO SUBSEQUENT PROCESSING IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFINING THE SCOPE OF HEADINGS 08.11 AND 20.06 . IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT FRUIT PRESERVED IN A MIXTURE OF WATER AND ALCOHOL MUST BE CLASSIFIED UNDER SUBHEADING 20.06 B I IF IT IS NOT UNSUITABLE FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION IN THAT STATE .
13 FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF NOMENCLATURE , THE COMMISSION TOOK THE VIEW THAT CHERRIES PUT UP IN A MIXTURE OF WATER AND ETHYL ALCOHOL ARE NOT THEREBY RENDERED UNSUITABLE FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION IN THAT STATE .
14 THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION HAVE NOT DISCLOSED ANY FACTOR ENABLING IT TO BE THOUGHT THAT THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN REGULATION NO 1709/74 IS MANIFESTLY INCORRECT .
15 IN FACT , EVEN THOUGH , AS THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION MAINTAIN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF EXPERTS ' REPORTS , THE GOODS AT ISSUE ARE NOT , IN THE VIEW OF CONSUMERS AT THE PRESENT TIME , CONSIDERED TO BE APPETIZING AND THOUGH IT IS NOT USUAL TO CONSUME THEM AS THEY ARE , THAT DOES NOT SIGNIFY THAT THEY ARE THEREBY UNSUITABLE FOR CONSUMPTION AS LONG AS THEY MAY BE CONSUMED IN THAT STATE WITHOUT RISK TO HEALTH . IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTIONS IN CASES 112 AND 113/79 ARGUED THAT THE DEGREE OF IMPURITY OF ALCOHOL IN WHICH THE GOODS THEY IMPORT ARE PUT UP IS HIGHER THAN THAT ACCEPTED BY GERMAN REGULATIONS ON THE SUBJECT ; BUT NONE OF THE APPLICANTS WENT AS FAR AS TO ARGUE THAT THE CONSUMPTION IN THAT STATE OF THE GOODS AT ISSUE , WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BE USED IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY , REPRESENTS A SPECIAL RISK TO HEALTH .