Lutz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover.
Date: 2017-10-19
35


However, it must be observed that, as far as concerns the Explanatory Notes to the CN, although they are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings, they do not have legally binding force (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 June 2016, MIS, C‑288/15, EU:C:2016:424, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
36


It should be stated that as it is clear from Section A, entitled ‘General Rules for the interpretation of the combined Nomenclature’ of Title I, headed ‘General Rules’, in the first part of the CN, entitled Preliminary provisions’, 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2016, Lemnis Lighting, C‑600/15, EU:C:2016:937, paragraph 35).
37


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 (judgments of 8 December 2016, Lemnis Lighting, C‑600/15, EU:C:2016:937, paragraph 36, and of 16 February 2017, Aramex Nederland, C‑145/16, EU:C:2017:130, paragraph 22).
38


It should be borne in mind that the Council of the European Union has conferred upon the Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, broad discretion to define the subject matter of tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, the Commission’s power to adopt the measures mentioned in Article 9(1)(a), (b) (d) and (e) of Regulation No 2658/87, like drafting additional notes, does not authorise it to alter the subject matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the HS established by the HS Convention whose scope the European Union has undertaken, under Article 3 thereof, not to modify (judgment of 12 February 2015, Raytek and Fluke Europe, C‑134/13, EU:C:2015:82, paragraph 29).
39


It is clear from the wording of heading 6212 of the CN that that heading includes ‘brassières, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted’. Furthermore, subheading 6212 20 00 of the CN specifically refers, in the context of heading 6212 thereof, to ‘Girdles and panty girdles’.
40


As regards the HS Explanatory Notes, 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).
47


Also the intended purpose of the product at issue in the main proceedings must be taken into consideration, as that purpose may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent in the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).