CELEX: 62011CN0383
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-383/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna

8.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/13
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 July 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-383/11)
   2011/C 298/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen Sad Varna
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Digitalnet OOD
   
      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsa Varna
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               How are the terms ‘modem’ and ‘internet access’ to be interpreted for the purposes of subheading 8528 71 13 of the 2009 Combined Nomenclature (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (1), OJ L 291, p. 1) and the Explanatory Notes?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               What is the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box, pursuant to which the tariff classification must be carried out: receipt of television signals or the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box is the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet, is the type of modulation and demodulation which the modem brings about or the type of modem used relevant to the tariff classification, or does it suffice that access to the internet is provided by means of the modem?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Is it permissible for the customs authorities to amend the customs duty classification of a specific product without physically checking the imported product, and for the experts’ report to be issued exclusively on the basis of written evidence, namely the user manual, technical characteristics and inspection of a device made by the same manufacturer which has the same number from another imported consignment?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Under which code of the 2009 Combined Nomenclature (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, OJ L 291, p. 1) should the goods forming the subject-matter of the proceedings (set-top box) be classified, having regard to the technical characteristics established in the main proceedings?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.