OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND OF THE DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING NATIONAL CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIONS OWING TO THE WIDE RANGE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE TASKS WHICH THEY MUST CARRY OUT .
13 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS OF GOODS ON WHICH CUSTOMS DUTIES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED MUST BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA DERIVED FROM THEIR WORDING AND THAT THEY MAY NOT BE APPLIED CONTRARY TO THEIR WORDING TO OTHER GOODS EVEN IF THEIR PROPERTIES AND APPLICATION ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE COVERED BY THE SUSPENSION . IN PARTICULAR , A LATER AMENDMENT OF THE DESCRIPTION OF A PRODUCT ON WHICH DUTIES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED CANNOT RETROACTIVELY AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DESCRIPTION PREVIOUSLY APPLIED FOR THAT PURPOSE .
14 IT MUST ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT REGULATIONS NOS 2916/80 AND 1533/81 DID NOT AMEND THE DESCRIPTION ' YARN WHOLLY OF POLYGLYCOLLIC ACID ' BUT ADDED ANOTHER DESCRIPTION TO THE LIST OF PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE SUSPENSION . THE ADOPTION OF THAT METHOD OF EXTENDING THE SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES TO THE YARN CONCERNED IN THE MAIN ACTION AGAIN CONFIRMS THAT THE DESCRIPTION IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS COVERING YARN SUCH AS THAT IMPORTED BY ETHICON .
15 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE DESCRIPTION ' YARN WHOLLY OF POLYGLYCOLLIC ACID ' EX SUBHEADING 51.01 A OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF CONTAINED IN COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1162/79 OF 12 JUNE 1979 AND NO 1481/80 OF 9 JUNE 1980 DOES NOT COVER YARN COMPOSED OF BOTH POLYGLYCOLLIC ACID , AND LACTIC ACID , EVEN IF THE 10% OF LACTIC ACID WHICH IT CONTAINS DOES NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTIES OR USE OF THAT PRODUCT .
THE SECOND QUESTION
16 ETHICON CONTENDS THAT THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION ARE INVALID AS REGARDS THE SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES ON THE GOODS FITTING THE DESCRIPTION IN QUESTION IF THAT DESCRIPTION MUST BE INTERPRETED NARROWLY , FOR THE USER INDUSTRY OF THE COMMUNITY HAS AN EQUAL NEED FOR BOTH TYPES OF YARN . THE FACT THAT THE SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTY IS RESTRICTED TO ONE KIND OF YARN , ALTHOUGH BOTH KINDS ARE EQUIVALENT IN EVERY RESPECT , IS ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION .
17 THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION DENY THAT THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION AND POINT OUT THAT THE PRODUCT CONCERNED IS OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION AND THAT THEY APPLY TO EVERY IMPORTER . THE REASON WHY THERE IS NO HEADING COVERING THE YARN IMPORTED BY ETHICON IN THOSE REGULATIONS IS THAT THE COUNCIL WAS NOT ADVISED EARLIER THAT THE COMMUNITY ' S USER INDUSTRY HAD A NEED FOR SUCH YARN .
18 IT MUST BE OBSERVED IN THIS REGARD THAT , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 NOVEMBER 1985 IN CASE 227/84 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH V HAUPTZOLLAMT MUNCHEN-MITTE ( 1985 ) ECR 3639 , ARTICLE 28 OF THE EEC TREATY LEAVES THE COUNCIL A WIDE DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER . IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS , IT IS