CELEX: 62006CA0372
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-13 00:00:00
Title: 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)

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-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)
   (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 and Customs
   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 incorporating 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 Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
            
         
               2)
            
            
               The provisions in column 3 under heading 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, mentioned in Annex 11 to Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the value acquired by colour television receivers on their manufacture in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, there is no cause to determine separately the non-preferential origin of a distinct part, such as a chassis.
            
         
               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 of the Customs Union, read in conjunction with those of Article 47(1) to (3) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 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 Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 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 Decision 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 interpreted 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 Decision No 1/95 or to the Association Council pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol, must be brought to the knowledge of operators.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.