Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München.
Date: 2014-05-15
30. None the less, that court asks, having regard to the judgment in Case C‑370/08 Data I/O EU:C:2010:284, whether that classification is correct in the light of note 2(a) to Section XVI of the CN. That court notes that the Court of Justice held, in paragraph 43 of that judgment, that an adapter such as that used in Data I/O’s programming systems could be classified under heading 8536 of the CN only if it was not covered by headings 8471 and 8473 thereof. A precedence thus appears to have been established in that heading 8473 of the CN takes priority over heading 8536 of the CN, or even a systematic precedence of heading 8473 over the other headings of Chapters 84 and 85 of the CN. However, the referring court, noting that, in that decision, the Court did not give an interpretation of note 2(a) to Section XVI of the CN concerning the tariff classification of parts of machines, doubts whether such parts of machines are to be given precedence by classification under heading 8473 of the CN. By reference to the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning note 2 to Sections XVI, Chapters 84 and 85 and heading 8473 of that system, the referring court is of the view that heading 8473 of the CN, as regards the classification of parts of machines, does not take precedence over the other headings of Chapters 84 and 85 of the CN.
33. It must be borne in mind that the Explanatory Notes drawn up by the Commission as regards the CN and by the World Customs Organisation as regards the HS may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see Case C‑423/10 Delphi Deutschland EU:C:2011:315, paragraph 24).
34. With a view to giving a useful answer to the referring court, it is necessary to state, first of all, that note 2 to Section XVI of the CN applies only to the tariff classification of ‘parts of machines’ (see, to that effect, Case 57/85 Senelco EU:C:1986:94, paragraph 12).
35. In that regard, it must be noted that the CN, in the versions applicable to the main proceedings, does not define the notions of ‘parts’ within the meaning of note 2 to Section XVI thereof. None the less, it is clear from the case-law of the Court concerning heading 8473 of the CN and note 2(b) to Section XVI thereof that the notion of ‘parts’ implies a whole for the operation of which the part is essential (Case C‑339/98 Peacock EU:C:2000:573, paragraph 21; Case C‑183/06 Ruma EU:C:2007:110, paragraph 31; and Case C‑336/11 Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe and Others  EU:C:2012:500, paragraph 34). It follows from the case-law that, in order to be able to classify an article as a ‘part’, it is not sufficient to show that, without that article, the machine is not able to function properly. It remains necessary to establish that the mechanical or electrical functioning of the machine in question is dependent upon that article (see, to that effect, Case C‑276/00 Turbon International  EU:C:2002:88, paragraph 30, and Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe and Others  EU:C:2012:500, paragraph 35).
36. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria the implementation of which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori  since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event, the national court is in a better position to do so (Case C‑12/10 Lecson Elektromobile EU:C:2010:823, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
39. That classification rule applies where the parts of machines in question are goods which, because of their own characteristics, are covered by a specific tariff heading of Chapters 84 and 85 (see, to that effect, Case 60/77 Fuss EU:C:1977:213, paragraph 5).
53. It does indeed follow from those Explanatory Notes that where a machine or apparatus can be covered by a heading in Chapter 84 and by a heading in Chapter 85 of the CN, its tariff classification must be under the first of those headings. In addition, in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment in Data I/O EU:C:2010:284, the Court deduced from the first paragraph of Part (A) of the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 85 of that system that a part of a machine, such as the adapter used by Data I/O in the programming machines at issue in that case, could be classified under heading 8536 of the CN only if it is not covered by headings 8471 and 8473 thereof.
58. Firstly, as regards the judgment in Peacock EU:C:2000:573, it must be stated that, in paragraph 21 thereof, the Court noted that the goods at issue in that case, namely network cards for installation in computers, did not constitute ‘parts’ of a machine. Accordingly, it cannot be deduced from the fact that the Court merely considered the possibility of classification of those goods under heading 8471 or under heading 8473 of the CN, without considering heading 8517 thereof, that a part of a machine must be classified, by precedence, under heading 8473 of the CN rather than under one of the other headings in Chapter 85 of the CN.
60. Finally, as regards the judgment in Case C‑173/08 Kloosterboer Services  EU:C:2009:382, it must be noted that, in the context of that judgment, the Court applied General Rule 3(b) of the NC concerning the classification of goods composed of different materials, coming under different sub-headings of the CN. Under that rule, in carrying out the tariff classification of goods it is necessary to identify, from among the materials of which they are composed, the one which gives them their essential character ( Kloosterboer Services EU:C:2009:382, paragraph 31). It is for the purposes of the application of that general rule that, in the latter judgment, the Court considered successively tariff headings 8473 30 90 and 8414 59 30 of the CN. It cannot be deduced from that examination that the Court intended to recognise any precedence of heading 8473 of the NC over the other headings in Chapter 84, or those in Chapter 85, thereof with a view to tariff classification under note 2 to Section XVI of the CN.