CELEX: 62002CC0133
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-11 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 11 September 2003. # Timmermans Transport & Logistics BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst - Douanedistrict Roosendaal and Hoogenboom Production Ltd v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst - Douanedistrict Rotterdam. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Gerechtshof te Amsterdam - Netherlands. # Classification of goods for customs tariff purposes - Binding tariff information - Conditions for the revocation of an information. # Joined cases C-133/02 and C-134/02.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALPHILIPPE LÉGER delivered on 11 September 2003  (1)
         Joined Cases C-133/02 and C-134/02 Timmermans Transport & Logistics BV, formerlyTimmermans Diessen BVvInspecteur der Belastingdienst-Douanedistrict RoosendaalandHoogenboom production LtdvInspecteur der Belastingdienst-Douanedistrict Rotterdam(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands))
            ((Customs duty – Classification of goods – Binding tariff information – Conditions governing revocation – Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
               establishing a Community Customs Code – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty))
            
            
      
         
       1.  Are national customs authorities entitled to revoke at their own discretion binding tariff information (hereinafter  
      BTI) which they issue to traders by way of a tariff classification for goods in cases where those national authorities change
      their interpretation of the relevant customs nomenclature?
      
       2.  That is the question which has been referred by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam) in proceedings
      brought by two undertakings, one established in the Netherlands and the other in Cyprus, against the Netherlands customs authorities
      in connection with the tariff classification of items of furniture and agricultural produce.
      
       3.  That question asks the Court to specify the meaning and scope of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
      of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code  
      
         			(2)
         		 (hereinafter the  
      CCC), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.  
      
         			(3)
         		 I ─ Legal framework
      
       4.  A BTI notice is a document by which the customs authorities of the Member States of the European Community inform traders,
      at their request, of the tariff heading (laid down in the customs nomenclature) under which goods which those traders intend
      to import or export should be classified. That information, which involves a degree of interpretation of the customs nomenclature,
      allows traders to predict the levels of import and export duty (which they are likely to have to pay) and also to calculate
      the total amount of export refund (which they are likely to receive under the common agricultural policy).
      
       5.  Customs authorities are required to issue the BTI ─ and, in principle, to comply with it for a certain period of time ─ on
      completion of the customs formalities, that is to say when the intended import or export operation is carried out.
      
       6.  That twofold obligation was introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 on the information provided by the customs authorities
      of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature.  
      
         			(4)
         		 It meets the need to ensure a measure of legal certainty for traders when carrying on their activities, the need to facilitate
      the work of the customs authorities and the need to secure more uniform application of Community customs law.  
      
         			(5)
         		 The system adopted by the Community Customs Code  
      
         			(6)
         		  and its implementing regulation was largely the same. 
      
         			(7)
         		
       7.  Applications for BTI are made in writing either to the competent customs authorities in the Member State (or Member States)
      in which the information is to be used, or to the competent customs authorities in the Member State in which the applicant
      is established.  
      
         			(8)
         		 The competent customs authorities' decision to grant an application for BTI is subject to the submission by the person concerned
      of various pieces of information. 
      
         			(9)
         		
       8.  BTI is valid for a period of six years from the date of issue.  
      
         			(10)
         		 During that period, it is binding on the issuing customs authorities and on the customs authorities of all the other Member
      States under the same conditions.  
      
         			(11)
         		
       9.  However, BTI may be annulled where it is based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the applicant.  
      
         			(12)
         		
       10.  Furthermore, according to Article 12(5) of the CCC ─ in the version in force at the material time ─  
      
         			(13)
         		 BTI  
       cease[s] to be valid: 
      (a) in the case of tariff information: 
      (i) where a regulation is adopted and the information no longer conforms to the law laid down thereby;  
      
      (ii) where it is no longer compatible with the interpretation of one of the nomenclatures ...:  
      
      
      
            ─
                at Community level, by reason of amendments to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature or by a judgment of the
               Court of Justice of the European Communities; 
               
                  			(14)
                  		 at Community level, by reason of amendments to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature or by a judgment of the
      Court of Justice of the European Communities; 
      
         			(14)
         		
      
      
      
            ─
                at international level, by reason of a classification opinion or an amendment of the explanatory notes to the Nomenclature
               of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System ...;  
             at international level, by reason of a classification opinion or an amendment of the explanatory notes to the Nomenclature
      of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System ...;  
      
      
      (iii) where it is revoked or amended in accordance with Article 9, provided that the revocation or amendment is notified to the
      holder ...
      
      . 
      
       11.  Article 9, to which the latter provisions refer, provides:  1. A decision favourable to the person concerned shall be revoked or amended where, in cases other than those referred to
      in Article 8 [where the favourable decision is annulled on the ground that it was issued on the basis of incorrect or incomplete
      information], one or more of the conditions laid down for its issue were not or are no longer fulfilled. 2. A decision favourable to the person concerned may be revoked where the person to whom it is addressed fails to fulfil an
      obligation imposed on him under that decision. ....
      
       12.  The customs authorities are required to send the Commission a copy of the BTI notified to the trader concerned, together with
      the facts and relevant information, and to inform the Commission in the event that the BTI is void or ceases to be valid. 
       
      
         			(15)
         		
       13.  A derogation from the cessation of validity of BTI is specifically provided for the benefit of the holder of that information
      in certain special circumstances. 
      
       14.  According to Article 12(6) of the CCC (in the version in force at the material time),  
      [t]he holder of [BTI] which ceases to be valid pursuant to paragraph 5(a)(ii) or (iii) ... may still use that information
      for a period of six months from the date of publication or notification, provided that he concluded binding contracts for
      the purchase or sale of the goods in question, on the basis of the [BTI], before that measure was adopted. However, that paragraph also provides that, 'in the case of products for which an export, import or advance-fixing certificate
      is submitted when customs formalities are carried out, the period of six months is replaced by the period of validity of the
      certificate'.
       II ─ Facts and procedure before the national court  
      
      
      
      A ─
       Case C-133/02  
      
       15.  On 12 January 1999, the company Timmermans Diessen BV (hereinafter  
      Timmermans), which is established in the Netherlands, applied to the Netherlands customs authorities (in the district of Roosendaal)
      for BTI to be issued in relation to items of furniture (produced by the firm PartyLite Trading SA) described as glass candlesticks,
      which, in its view, fell under tariff heading 9405 50 00 90. It stated in support of its application that the same type of
      goods had been classified under that tariff heading by BTI issued previously and submitted a catalogue showing all the products
      it offered for sale, including photographs of the goods in question.
      
       16.  On 15 January 1999, the competent customs authorities issued BTI granting Timmermans' application in full (as regards the
      description of the goods and their tariff classification).
      
       17.  However, on 19 March 1999, they revoked that BTI on the ground that, following a more detailed examination of the matter and
      after consultation with the customs authorities in a neighbouring district on the interpretation of the relevant nomenclature,
      it had become apparent that the goods in question should be classified under tariff heading 7013 29 91 00 (rather than under
      the heading initially selected) as glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, etc. The decision to revoke
      the BTI was to take effect on the date of its adoption.
      
       18.  On 29 March 1999, Timmermans raised an objection to the decision to revoke the BTI. That objection was dismissed by decision
      of 20 May 1999. On 12 June 1999, it therefore brought an appeal against the latter decision before the national court.
      
       19.  In support of that appeal, it submits that, since the issue of the BTI in question suggested that the tariff classification
      contained in it would be binding for years to come and would not be changed, its revocation infringed the principle of the
      protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. According to the competent customs authorities,
      the revocation at issue was based on the combined provisions of Articles 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended.
      
      
      
      B ─
       Case C-134/02  
      
       20.  On 9 October 1997, the company Hoogenboom Production Ltd (hereinafter  
      Hoogenboom), which is established in Cyprus, applied to the Netherlands customs authorities (in the district of Rotterdam) for the issue
      of BTI in relation to products described as  
      preserved apricots containing added sugar, which, in its view, fell under tariff heading 2008 50 61 00.
      
       21.  On 5 December 1997, the customs authorities in question issued BTI granting that company's application in full (as regards
      the description of the goods and their tariff heading).
      
       22.  On 6 February 1998, Hoogenbloom applied to the same customs authorities for the issue of four BTI notices in relation to products
      (similar to those covered by the previous notice) described as preserved apples, hazelnuts and sunflower seeds containing
      added sugar (which, according to the applicant, fell under tariff headings 2008 99 49 30 00, 2008 19 19 10 00 and 2008 19
      19 90 00 respectively) and unroasted peanuts (which, again according to the applicant, fell under tariff heading 2008 11 94
      00 00).
      
       23.  On 26 February 1998, the customs authorities in question issued four BTI notices granting Hoogenboom's applications in full.
      
       24.  However, on 6 October 1998, they revoked all the notices issued (that is to say five in total) on the ground that the products
      at issue should be classified under tariff heading 1701  
      
         			(16)
         		 and not under the heading initially prescribed, the wording for which precluded classification thereunder.  
      
         			(17)
         		 On that occasion, they allowed Hoogenboom to carry on using the revoked BTI until 31 December 1998.
      
       25.  On 9 November 1998, Hoogenboom raised an objection to the decision to revoke the BTI which was dismissed by decision of 25
      March 1999. On 23 April 1999, it therefore lodged an appeal against the latter decision before the national court.
      
       26.  In support of that appeal, it submits that there is no legal basis for the revocation decision at issue, either in Article
      9 or in Article 12(5) of the CCC. Its interpretation of those provisions is contested by the customs authorities, which take
      the contrary view that Article 12(5)(a)(iii) explicitly provides for the possibility of such revocation in the event of a
      blatant error by the customs authorities in the classification of goods for tariff purposes.
       III ─ The question referred  
      
       27.  In the light of the arguments put forward by the parties, the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam decided to stay proceedings and refer
      the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) thereof, provide the customs
      authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing BTI where they change the position adopted in it with regard to the interpretation
      of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned even where the change is made within
      the six-year period referred to?
       IV ─ Observations of the parties  
      
       28.  According to Timmermans and Hoogenboom, who attended the hearing, it follows from the Court's case-law that BTI may not be
      unilaterally amended by national customs authorities.  
      
         			(18)
         		 The amendment of BTI by national customs authorities does not fall within their own initiative but exclusively within that
      of the Commission. The contrary situation would have the effect of jeopardising the requirements of legal certainty (in a
      manner contrary to the objective pursued by the introduction of BTI) and the uniform application of Community law (particularly
      in circumstances where there was a possibility that the same BTI might be amended at will by the customs authorities in every
      Member State).
      
       29.  According to the Netherlands Government, national customs authorities are entitled to amend BTI where a more detailed examination
      leads them to the view that the goods concerned should be classified under a different tariff heading following an error of
      assessment or a change in thinking in relation to tariff classification.
      
       30.  In support of that view, it argues that Article 9(1) of the CCC (to which reference is made by Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of the
      CCC, as amended) implicitly but necessarily implies that the grant of BTI is subject to its conformity with the customs nomenclature
      as it should be understood at the time of the customs declaration for the goods in question, that is to say at the time when
      the import or export operation is carried out. In cases where that condition appeared to be met at the time when the BTI was
      issued but is no longer met when the economic operation is carried out, customs authorities are entitled to revoke or amend
      the BTI in question. Ruling out the possibility of such revocation or amendment throughout the period for which the BTI is
      valid (i.e. for six years) would result in an unacceptable distortion of competition between traders. Furthermore, a measure
      revoking or amending BTI in this way is not contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the
      principle of legal certainty because Article 12(6) of the CCC provides that the holder of the BTI in question may continue
      to use that information for a certain period of time.
      
       31.  In the same vein, the Commission submits that the combined provisions of Articles 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC authorise
      national customs authorities to amend or revoke BTI in order to correct errors they have made in classifying goods for tariff
      purposes. That view, it contends, is not contrary either to the principle that BTI is binding on customs authorities in the
      determination of customs debts or refunds, or to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since, firstly,
      the possibility of revoking or amending BTI is clearly provided for by the aforementioned provisions of the Community Customs
      Code and thus precludes any legitimate expectation that the BTI will remain in being and, secondly, the holder of BTI may
      continue to use that information for six months after its revocation, so that observance of the principle of legal certainty
      is ensured. 
       V ─ Analysis  
      
       32.  First of all, I would point out that neither of the two orders for reference indicates whether the tariff classification given
      in the BTI at issue was in fact vitiated by an error in the interpretation of the customs nomenclature. Although the customs
      authorities claim to have made such an error when issuing the BTI in question, there is nothing in the file to support the
      view that the alleged error has been established.
      
       33.  After all, the customs authorities that issued the BTI merely carried out a more detailed examination of the customs nomenclature
      and of the resultant tariff classification of the goods concerned and, in the Timmermans case, made consultations on the matter
      but only with the customs authorities in a neighbouring district. These cannot be considered sufficient grounds on which to
      be able to say with certainty that an error has been established.
      
       34.  In such circumstances, the customs authorities can therefore be said to have revoked the BTI in question at their own discretion,
      that is to say in accordance with the change in their own interpretation of the customs nomenclature.
      
       35.  In my view, the question referred should therefore be understood as seeking to ascertain whether the combined provisions of
      Articles 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended, are to be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities are entitled,
      on the basis of those provisions, to revoke BTI issued by them at their own discretion in cases where they (on their assessment
      alone, in some cases following consultations restricted to the customs authorities in a neighbouring district) change their
      interpretation of the customs nomenclature.
      
       36.  As the Court held in the aforementioned judgment in  
      Lopex Export,  
      it appeared necessary, in order to ensure a measure of legal certainty for traders when carrying on their activities, to facilitate
      the work of the customs services themselves and secure more uniform application of Community customs law, to establish rules
      which oblige customs authorities to provide information which is binding on the administration under certain well-defined
      conditions.  
      
         			(19)
         		 Those were the objectives which were pursued by Regulation No 1715/90 and by the regulation, which succeeded the former,
      establishing the Community Customs Code, in particular the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
      
       37.  The question whether the customs authorities of the Member States are entitled, on the basis of the combined provisions of
      Articles 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, to revoke BTI at their own discretion in cases where they change their interpretation
      of the relevant customs nomenclature must be determined in the light of those objectives and of the general scheme of the
      rules introduced. In my view, that question must be answered in the negative.
      
       38.  As I have already said, Article 12(2) and (4) of the CCC provides that BTI is binding on the customs authorities as against
      the holder of that information in respect of the tariff classification of the goods concerned and is in principle binding
      for a period of six years from its date of issue. That principle satisfies the concern to provide traders with certain guarantees
      or assurances as to the future tariff classification of goods which they intend to import or export, in view of the considerable
      difficulties they may encounter in this area as a result of the highly technical nature of the customs nomenclature.  
      
         			(20)
         		
       39.  After all, only binding tariff information is capable of offering such guarantees. It alone allows a trader to predict with
      sufficient reliability the customs classification relevant to the goods in question and, consequently, the tariff arrangements
      (duty or refund) likely to apply to the operations by which he intends to import or export those goods.  
      
         			(21)
         		  Since BTI is, in principle, binding for a period of six years, the holder of that information is able, at the time of issue,
      to make forecasts for the long and shorter term, to start from a position of knowledge when positioning himself on a given
      market for the sale of goods and to make the investments necessary. The ability to make such forecasts is clearly critical,
      particularly for small and medium-sized undertakings, since a change in the tariff classification given in BTI (if it involves
      an increase in the level of duty payable or a reduction in the amount of refund due) may have a significant impact on the
      cost of the intended operation, with the result that carrying out that operation may ultimately be of little or no benefit
      to the undertaking and may even place it in serious difficulties.
      
       40.  Given the importance of the tariff classification of goods and the consequences it has for traders, it is incumbent on customs
      authorities to be particularly diligent when issuing BTI, by ensuring inter alia that they have all the information they require
      to give an informed opinion on the tariff classification of the goods in question. 
      
         			(22)
         		
       41.  That duty of diligence is particularly important given that, pursuant to Article 11 of the implementing regulation, BTI supplied
      by the customs authorities of one Member State is binding on the competent authorities of all the Member States under the
      same conditions. This principle means that the competent authorities of a Member State in which customs formalities are completed
      in respect of certain goods are not entitled to depart from the terms of the BTI issued by the competent authorities of another
      Member State in respect of the same goods (particularly if the BTI was issued by the competent authorities of the Member State
      in which the holder of the information in question is established). 
      
         			(23)
         		  It also means that the tariff classification of equivalent goods cannot vary from one Member State to another according
      to the differing assessments given by the various national customs authorities, as this would fail to take into account the
      objective of securing the uniform application of the customs nomenclature within the Community, which is intended, inter alia,
      to avoid the development of discriminatory treatment as between the traders concerned. 
      
         			(24)
         		
       42.  All of which shows that BTI is inherently binding in relation to its holder, who is entitled to use that information. It is
      therefore intended to be binding not only on the customs authorities that issued it, but also on the customs authorities of
      all the other Member States.
      
       43.  It is only in certain very specific circumstances that BTI is not binding, because void, or ceases to be so, with the result
      that the holder of that information is not or is no longer entitled to use it. Those circumstances are listed exhaustively
      in Article 12(4) and (5)(a) of the CCC, as amended. As those provisions lay down exceptions to the principle that BTI is binding
      on customs authorities in relation to its holder, they should be interpreted strictly.
      
       44.  I would point out that the provisions contained in Article 12(4) and (5)(a)(i) and (ii) of the CCC, as amended, expressly
      apply to circumstances unconnected with the customs authorities (i.e. involving the holders of BTI or Community institutions),
      and not to circumstances brought about by those authorities alone. On the other hand, it is clearly impossible, on the basis
      of their wording, to say whether or not the same is true of Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended, and Article 9 thereof,
      to which Article 12(5)(a)(iii) refers. It is my opinion, therefore, that the provisions in question do not cover a situation,
      such as that in the disputes in the main proceedings, where the customs authorities change their interpretation of the relevant
      customs nomenclature on an entirely independent basis (in accordance with their assessment alone). I shall endeavour to demonstrate
      this now.
      
       45.  It should be pointed out first of all that the second sentence of Article 12(4) of the CCC, as amended, provides that BTI
      is to be annulled where it is based on inaccurate or incomplete information from the applicant. As I have already said, these
      provisions apply expressly to circumstances relating essentially to the conduct of the holder of the BTI, not to that of the
      customs authorities, even though those authorities have a responsibility to exercise a measure of diligence when issuing BTI
      by ensuring that the file submitted by the applicant is complete. 
      
         			(25)
         		
       46.  Article 12(5)(a)(i) of the CCC, as amended, provides for the situation where BTI is not in conformity with a Community regulation
      adopted after the BTI was issued (and while it is still valid, that is to say within six years of its being issued). That
      situation was examined by the Court in  
      Lopex Export, cited above, which concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the provisions of the first indent
      of the first paragraph of Article 13 of Regulation No 1715/90, which are similar to those in force now, as cited above. 
      
         			(26)
         		
       47.  On that occasion, the Court was at pains to make it clear that,  
      [a]s the Council and Commission were right to point out, the aim of binding tariff information is to enable the trader to
      proceed with certainty where there are doubts as to the classification of goods in the existing customs nomenclature, thereby
      protecting him against any subsequent change in the position adopted by the customs authorities with regard to the classification
      of the goods.  
      
         			(27)
         		 The Court held that,  
      [h]owever, [BTI] is not aimed at, nor can it have the effect of, guaranteeing that the tariff heading to which the trader
      refers will not subsequently be amended by a measure adopted by the Community legislature. 
      
         			(28)
         		
       48.  The Court went on to say that that principle follows clearly and precisely from the wording of the provisions at issue, which
      are therefore in keeping with the requirements relating to the safeguarding of legal certainty (because they allow traders
      to be certain of their rights and obligations), and that, accordingly, traders are precluded from being able to entertain,
      on the sole basis of BTI, a legitimate expectation that the tariff heading in question will not be amended by a measure adopted
      by the Community legislature.  
      
         			(29)
         		 The Court concluded that consideration of the provisions at issue had not disclosed the existence of any factors of such
      a kind as to affect their validity. 
      
         			(30)
         		
       49.  In my view, the circumstances in which the BTI ceased to be valid in that case are radically different from those described
      in the disputes in the main proceedings. In the former circumstances, the BTI ceases to be valid where a regulation is adopted
      by the Community institutions, that is to say where there is an amendment to the law applicable within the Community, rather
      than a mere change in the individual interpretation of that law ─ at regional or even national level ─ given by particular
      customs authorities, which would not be readily compatible with the objective of the uniform application of the customs nomenclature
      or with the concern to prevent the introduction of discriminatory treatment as between traders.
      
       50.  The first indent of Article 12(5)(a)(ii) of the CCC, as amended, works in the same way. It does provide that BTI must cease
      to be valid where it is no longer compatible with a particular interpretation of the relevant customs nomenclature. However,
      the interpretation at Community level to which it refers has nothing to do with that at issue in the disputes in the main
      proceedings. The difference between the two is one not only of degree but also of substance. After all, the interpretation
      referred to by the above provisions is based exclusively on amendments to the explanatory notes to the relevant nomenclature
      or from a judgment of the Court of Justice. Such measures and decisions are necessarily aimed at, and have the effect of,
      ensuring the correct and uniform application of the customs nomenclature within the Community. They are specifically directed
      at the customs authorities of all the Member States in order to guide them in their implementation of the customs nomenclature
      and thus to prevent any errors or differences in the interpretation of that nomenclature.
      
       51.  In my opinion, the provisions of Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended, must be regarded as pursuing the same aim of
      ensuring the correct and uniform implementation of the customs nomenclature.
      
       52.  Moreover, the Commission has already adopted several decisions on the basis of those provisions (as well as on those of Article
      9 of the implementing regulation)  
      
         			(31)
         		 in order to put a stop to persistent differences or established errors of interpretation which had given rise to conflicting
      BTI notices (i.e. conflicts between notices issued by the customs authorities of some Member States without taking account
      of the general rules on the interpretation of the combined nomenclature or a regulation determining the classification of
      goods in the customs nomenclature and those issued correctly by the competent authorities of the other Member States). 
      
         			(32)
         		
       53.  Those Commission decisions required the customs authorities which had issued incorrect BTI to revoke that information as soon
      as possible, but at the same time they pointed out that, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the implementing regulation (read
      together with Article 12(6) of the CCC, as amended), the holder of the BTI in question may, where appropriate, continue to
      use that information for a certain period of time.
      
       54.  Those precedents shed interesting light on the interpretation of the combined provisions of Article 12(5)(a)(iii) and Article
      9(1) of the CCC, as amended.
      
       55.  They support in part the interpretation put forward by the Netherlands Government and the Commission, in particular as regards
      Article 9(1) of the CCC, as amended, which states that  
      [a] decision favourable to the person concerned [such as a BTI notice], shall be revoked or amended where ... one or more
      of the conditions laid down for its issue were not or are no longer fulfilled.
      
       56.  For the tariff classification given in BTI may be assumed to be in conformity with the relevant customs nomenclature since
      it is determined by the customs authorities, that is to say by the national authorities best placed to appreciate the various
      technicalities involved. That being the case, the view may be taken, as the Netherlands Government and the Commission do,
      that the tariff classification in question is valid only in so far as it is in conformity with the relevant customs nomenclature,
      which means that, where that condition of conformity is not or is no longer fulfilled, the BTI in question must be revoked,
      in accordance with Article 9(1) of the CCC, as amended.
      
       57.  That interpretation is consistent with the meaning of the provisions of Article 12(5)(a)(i) and (ii) of the CCC, as amended,
      which I examined above, since those provisions state that BTI must cease to be valid where the tariff classification contained
      in it is no longer in conformity with the relevant legislation or becomes incompatible with the necessary interpretation of
      the customs nomenclature.
      
       58.  By extension of those provisions, the view may be taken that BTI must be revoked where the customs authorities have actually
      made an error (i.e. one established as such rather than one which they merely claim to have committed) in the interpretation
      of the customs nomenclature and, therefore, in the tariff classification of the goods covered by the BTI in question. The
      Commission decisions I have referred to support that idea, since they required certain customs authorities to revoke BTI containing
      a tariff classification which had been proved to be incorrect (inasmuch as it was contrary to the general rules on the interpretation
      of the combined nomenclature or a regulation on the classification of the goods in question).
      
       59.  However, I do not share the opinion, put forward by the Netherlands Government and the Commission, that customs authorities
      are entitled to revoke BTI in cases where they take the view at their own discretion (i.e. on the basis of their assessment
      alone) that they have made an error in the interpretation of the customs nomenclature and in the corresponding tariff classification.
      After all, such revocation is not necessarily justified because the error in question has not necessarily been established
      as such. Furthermore, the possibility of revoking BTI in this way is not readily compatible either with the objective of the
      uniform application of the customs nomenclature or with the objective of legal certainty pursued by the introduction of BTI.
      
       60.  As regards the objective of the uniform application of the customs nomenclature, I consider that, while a Commission decision
      ordering the revocation of BTI is necessarily aimed at, and has the effect of, ensuring the correct and uniform application
      of the customs nomenclature, the same cannot be said of the practice whereby the customs authorities decide at their own discretion
      to revoke BTI which they have issued following a change in their own interpretation of the relevant nomenclature, even though,
      in so doing, the authorities in question may be motivated by the desire to align their interpretation with that given by other
      customs authorities.
      
       61.  After all, it should be borne in mind that, unlike the Commission, the customs authorities issuing BTI do not necessarily
      have an overview of all the BTI notices issued by all the other customs authorities within the Community in respect of identical
      or similar goods.  
      
         			(33)
         		
       62.  In my opinion, where customs authorities consider that they have made an error in the interpretation of the customs nomenclature
      when issuing BTI, they should notify the Commission to that effect in order to ensure that it is indeed an error such as to
      justify revocation of the BTI in question. Only a mechanism such as this would be capable of ensuring that the customs nomenclature
      is applied correctly, or at least uniformly. In my view, the need for customs authorities to notify the Commission in this
      way follows both from the objectives of legal certainty and the uniform application of the customs nomenclature pursued through
      the introduction of BTI, and from the obligation incumbent on Member States, under Article 10 EC, to cooperate dutifully with
      the Community institutions. 
      
         			(34)
         		
       63.  Moreover, as the Commission stated at the hearing, it is often approached by the customs authorities of certain Member States
      contesting the validity of BTI issued by other customs authorities as regards the interpretation of the customs nomenclature
      given in that information. As it went on to say, it must then assess whether it is necessary to adopt on the validity of the
      BTI in question a decision ordering the customs authorities against which the complaint has been made to revoke that information.
      
       64.  In my view, the question that arises is whether a decision would also be necessary if the Commission were approached by the
      customs authorities that had issued the BTI themselves (rather than by other customs authorities) and, if so, whether a simple
      letter from the Commission to the relevant customs authorities would suffice, that is to say a form of reply the adoption
      and transmission of which is not subject to excessive procedural constraints.
      
       65.  As regards the objective of legal certainty, it is important to point out that the interpretation put forward by the Netherlands
      Government and the Commission makes the principle that BTI is inherently binding redundant and thus fails to take into account
      the aim pursued by the Community legislature in introducing the BTI system, as described by the Court in its judgment in 
      
      Lopex Export, cited above.  
      
         			(35)
         		 After all, the principle that BTI is binding would be meaningless if customs authorities were entitled to revoke BTI issued
      by them at their own discretion, on the sole ground that, in their view, they had made an error or had changed their own interpretation
      of the customs nomenclature.
      
       66.  In any event, given that objective of legal certainty, I find it difficult to imagine that the Community legislature would
      have been content to afford only temporary protection for the interests of BTI holders (in the manner provided for in Article
      12(6) of the CCC, as amended) if, which I do not believe they are, customs authorities were entitled (on the basis of Article
      12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended) to revoke BTI in the circumstances at issue.
      
       67.  In this respect, I am not convinced by the explanation given by the Commission at the hearing to the effect that that protection
      lasts for as long as it usually takes for the goods to be delivered (in its submission, approximately six months), with the
      result that the holder of BTI does not have to endure the inconvenience of revocation of the information because he can use
      it for six months and thus complete his marketing operation.
      
       68.  First of all, it is not inconceivable that some contracts will carry longer delivery periods. Moreover, even if the protection
      does last for as long as it takes for the goods in question to be delivered, it is likewise not inconceivable that the revocation
      of BTI will have a serious impact on the marketing activities of the trader concerned.
      
       69.  After all, although, in those circumstances, the holder of the BTI would be able to use that information when completing the
      customs formalities relating to the goods in question, he would not be able to use it later when marketing identical goods.
      Revocation of that BTI could put the trader concerned in a difficult position in that it could wreck his tariff classification
      forecasts for identical goods, and thus to a large extent call into question the wisdom of his commercial policy and his investments,
      especially if he carries on his activity as part of a small or medium-sized undertaking and the BTI is revoked shortly after
      it has been issued, that is to say long before the expiry of its six-year period of validity.
      
       70.  Such a situation would hardly be compatible with the objective pursued through the introduction of BTI, which was to provide
      traders with significant guarantees as to the tariff classification of goods so that they could carry on their activities
      on a satisfactory basis. In this regard, much as I can understand why the Community legislature, after weighing up the interests
      involved (those of BTI holders and those relating to the correct and uniform application of the customs nomenclature), provided
      only temporary protection for the interests of BTI holders in cases where the information becomes incompatible with the interpretation
      of the customs nomenclature given by the Community institutions, and, in particular, by the Court of Justice, I none the less
      find it difficult to imagine that the Community legislature intended for BTI holders to be subject to the same arrangements
      in cases where the information is revoked by the customs authorities at their own discretion.
      
       71.  Consequently, the answer to the question referred in this case should be that the combined provisions of Articles 9(1) and
      12(5)(a)(iii) of the CCC, as amended, are to be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities which have issued BTI are
      not entitled, on the basis of those provisions, to revoke that information at their own discretion in cases where they change
      their own interpretation of the relevant customs nomenclature.
        VI ─ Conclusion
      
       72.  In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the question referred for a preliminary
      ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam as follows: The combined provisions of Articles 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
      the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December
      1996 are to be interpreted as meaning that customs authorities which have issued binding tariff information are not entitled
      to revoke that information at their own discretion in cases where they change their own interpretation of the relevant customs
      nomenclature.
      
       1 –
         
           Original language: French.
      
      2 –
         
         OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
      
      3 –
         
         OJ 1997 L 17, p. 1.
      
      4 –
         
         OJ 1990 L 160, p. 1.
      
      5 –
         
         Third recital in the preamble to the regulation.
      
      6 –
         
         Title I, Chapter 2, Section 3.
      
      7 –
         
         Title II of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of the CCC
            (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1; hereinafter  
            the implementing regulation).
         
      
      8 –
         
         Article 12(1) of the CCC and Article 6(1) of the implementing regulation.
      
      9 –
         
         Article 6(3) and (4) of the implementing regulation.
      
      10 –
         
         Article 12(4) of the CCC.
      
      11 –
         
         Article 12(2) of the CCC and Article 11 of the implementing regulation.
      
      12 –
         
         Article 12(4) of the CCC.
      
      13 –
         
         As amended by Regulation No 82/97, which entered into force on 1 January 1997, as corrected (OJ 1997 L 179, p. 11).
      
      14 –
         
         Article 12(4) provides that the date on which the BTI ceases to be valid is to be the date of publication of the said  
            measures.
         
      
      15 –
         
         Articles 8(1) and 13 of the implementing regulation.
      
      16 –
         
         Tariff heading 1701 applies to  
            cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form.
         
      
      17 –
         
         Tariff heading 2008 applies to  
            fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other
            sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.
         
      
      18 –
         
         The applicants referred to the judgments in Case C-250/91  
            Hewlett Packard France [1993] ECR I-1819 and Case C-315/96  
            Lopex Export [1998] ECR I-317.
         
      
      19 –
         
         Paragraph 19.
      
      20 –
         
         The fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1715/90 stated that information concerning the classification of goods
            in the customs nomenclature is the most important and most useful category of information for traders because of the highly
            technical nature of the combined nomenclature and the Community nomenclatures derived from it.
         
      
      21 –
         
         It is important to point out that the tariff classification given in BTI does not affect the rate of duty or refund, based
            on that classification, that will be applicable on completion of the customs formalities relating to the goods in question.
            That was stated in the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1715/90. Practice has shown that rates of duty and
            refund vary regularly in line with market trends.
         
      
      22 –
         
         See to this effect Article 6(3) and (4) of the implementing regulation.
      
      23 –
         
         See Article 6(1) of the implementing regulation, which specifies the customs authorities to which applications for BTI should
            be directed.
         
      
      24 –
         
         As pointed out in relation to Regulation No 1715/90 by Advocate General Tesauro in his Opinion in  
            Hewlett Packard France, cited above (fourth paragraph of point 5).
         
      
      25 –
         
         In this case, it is common ground that the information submitted by Hoogenboom in its various applications for BTI was accurate
            and complete (see paragraph 2.3 of the order for reference and paragraph 18 of the Commission's observations). Although the
            national court has not said as much, I assume that the same was true of that submitted by Timmermans.
         
      
      26 –
         
         Those provisions state that  
            [w]here, as a result of the adoption of a regulation amending the customs nomenclature, or a regulation determining or affecting
            the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature, [BTI] previously supplied no longer conforms to Community laws as
            thus established, such information shall cease to be valid from the date on which the regulation in question applies.
         
      
      27 –
         
         Judgment in  
            Lopex Export, cited above (paragraph 28).
         
      
      28 –
         
         .Ibidem.
         
      
      29 –
         
         .Ibidem (paragraphs 28 and 29).
         
      
      30 –
         
         .Ibidem (paragraph 31).
         
      
      31 –
         
         I would point out that only the provisions of Article 9(1) are relevant, not those of Article 9(2). As was made clear at the
            hearing, BTI does not impose obligations on its holder, but the decisions referred to in Article 9(2) do.
         
      
      32 –
         
         See, inter alia, Commission Decisions 98/405/EC of 16 June 1998 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information
            (issued by Danish, French and Netherlands customs authorities (OJ 1998 L 178, p. 42)); 1999/637/EC of 12 July 1999 concerning
            the validity of certain binding tariff information (issued by United Kingdom customs authorities (OJ 1999 L 251, p. 17));
            1999/747/EC of 8 November 1999 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information (issued by German and Netherlands
            customs authorities (OJ 1999 L 298, p. 37)); 2000/41/EC of 29 December 1999 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff
            information (issued by Irish and United Kingdom customs authorities (OJ 2000 L 13, p. 27)); and 2003/97/EC of 31 January 2003
            concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information (BTI) issued by the Federal Republic of Germany (OJ 2003 L 36,
            p. 40).
         
      
      33 –
         
         The Commission has all the necessary relevant details, since it is responsible for administering a database containing copies
            of all the BTI notices issued and the details relating to them (see Articles 6(3)(k) and 8(1) of the implementing regulation).
            The Commission may send that data to customs authorities which request it to do so (Article 8(2) of the implementing regulation).
            Customs authorities intending to revoke a BTI notice at their own discretion will not necessarily take the trouble to request
            such details from the Commission so that they can make their decision on an informed basis.
         
      
      34 –
         
         See,  
            mutatis mutandis, the judgment in Case C-234/89  
            Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935, paragraphs 44, 45, 47, 49, 52 and 53, which concerned the respective powers of the national courts and
            the Commission in the application of Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) relating to competition.
         
      
      35 –
         
         Paragraphs 19 and 28.