Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV.
Date: 2016-12-08
33


As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of classification for customs purposes, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria 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 (judgment of 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
35


In order to provide a helpful answer to the referring court, it must be stated at the outset that, as is apparent from paragraph 13 above, first, the General rules for the interpretation of the CN provide that the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any section or chapter notes, the titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters being provided for ease of reference only.
36


Second, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the notes to the sections or chapters (judgment of 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
37


As regards the Explanatory Notes to the HS, it should be added that, although they do not have legally binding force, they are an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff and, as such, may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (judgment of 17 March 2016, Sonos Europe, C‑84/15, EU:C:2016:184, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
48


It should be borne in mind that although the CN does not define ‘parts’ within the meaning of CN heading 8548, it is clear from the Court’s case-law, developed in the context of Chapters 84 and 85 of Section XVI and of Chapter 90 of Section XVIII of the CN, that the notion of ‘parts’ implies a whole for the operation of which the part is essential. It follows from that case-law that, in order to classify an article as ‘parts’ within the meaning of those chapters, it is not sufficient to show that, without that article, the machine or apparatus is not able to carry out its intended functions. It must also be established that the mechanical or electrical functioning of the machine or apparatus in question is dependent on that article (judgment of 12 December 2013, HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
54


As regards CN heading 8543, it is clear from the wording of that heading that it covers ‘electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in [Chapter 85 of the CN]’. Thus, the classification of a product under the same heading is feasible only if it is not possible to classify that product under another heading of Chapter 85. It follows from paragraphs 42, 46 and 50 of the present judgment that that is not the case here (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 71.
55


Moreover, CN heading 8543 applies to an electrical machine or apparatus only if it has an individual function (judgment of 20 November 2014, Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraph 27).