OF 11 APRIL 1967 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1967 , P . 16 ) AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/388 OF 17 MAY 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 145 , P . 1 ) ON THE HARMONIZATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO TURNOVER TAXES .
2 THOSE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS BV , KAMPEN , AND THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE , ZWOLLE , REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE BY VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS FOLLOWING A REASSESSMENT .
3 AMONG OTHER THINGS VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS CARRIES OUT REPAIRS , SOMETIMES RADICAL , ON SCHOOL BOOKS , AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNERS OF THOSE BOOKS . DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1976 TO 1979 VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS PAID VALUE-ADDED TAX IN RESPECT OF SUCH REPAIRS AT THE REDUCED RATE OF 4% CHARGED UNDER NETHERLANDS LAW ON SUPPLIES OF BOOKS .
4 AFTER AN INVESTIGATION IN 1981 THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AT ZWOLLE DECIDED THAT THOSE REPAIRS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SUPPLY OF GOODS UNDER THE RELEVANT NETHERLANDS LEGISLATION BUT RATHER THE PROVISION OF SERVICES , TO WHICH A RATE OF 18% APPLIED . THE INSPECTOR THEREFORE ISSUED A REASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR THE YEARS 1976 TO 1979 . THAT NOTICE WAS UPHELD NOTWITHSTANDING AN OBJECTION LODGED BY VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS .
5 VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS THEN BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE BEFORE THE GERECHTSHOF ( REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ), ARNHEM . THAT COURT HELD THAT DESPITE THE RADICAL REPAIRS CARRIED OUT THE OLD BOOK CONTINUED TO EXIST , THAT THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURE OF A NEW ARTICLE AND THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPLY OF GOODS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NETHERLANDS LEGISLATION ON VALUE-ADDED TAX . BY JUDGMENT OF 14 APRIL 1983 IT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ACTION WAS UNFOUNDED .
6 VAN DIJK ' S BOEKHUIS APPEALED AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT TO THE HOGE RAAD . IT ARGUED THAT THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY IT ON BOOKS IN TATTERS RESULTED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A NEW BOOK ; IN DECIDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPLY OF GOODS THE GERECHTSHOF , ARNHEM , THEREFORE MISAPPLIED THE NETHERLANDS LAW OF 1968 ON VALUE-ADDED TAX .
7 FOR THE HOGE RAAD THAT ARGUMENT RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF THE TERM ' MAKE ' IN THE LAW ON VALUE-ADDED TAX . THE HOGE RAAD CONSIDERS THAT THE NETHERLANDS LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND THAT TERM TO HAVE ANY MEANING OTHER THAN THAT OF THE TERM ' MADE ' AS USED IN ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) ( D ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 67/228 OF 11 APRIL 1967 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES CONCERNING TURNOVER TAXES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1967 , P . 16 ) ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE SECOND DIRECTIVE ' ). THE HOGE RAAD IS ALSO OF