Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2016-07-14
31


In order to answer the questions referred, it must be stated, first, that 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 (see judgments of 12 June 2014 in Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 33, and 11 June 2015 in Baby Dan, C‑272/14, EU:C:2015:388, paragraph 25).
32


Second, according to 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 found 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 (see, inter alia, judgments of 16 February 2006 in Proxxon, C‑500/04, EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 21, and 5 March 2015 in Vario Tek, C‑178/14, EU:C:2015:152, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
40


In that regard, following settled case-law, the Explanatory Notes to the HS are an important aid for interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force. The wording of those notes must therefore be consistent with the provisions of the CN and cannot alter their scope (judgment of 26 November 2015 in Duval, C‑44/15, EU:C:2015:783, paragraph 24).
43


It follows from the wording of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the CN that the expression ‘specific function’ which it uses designates a function ‘other than data processing’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 December 2008 in Kip Europe and Others, C‑362/07 and C‑363/07, EU:C:2008:710, paragraph 32).
44


Furthermore, it follows from the general scheme and purpose of that note that the expression ‘are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions’ included in that note, seeks to prevent apparatus whose function has nothing to do with data processing from being classified under heading 8471 for the sole reason that they incorporate an automatic data-processing machine or work in connection with such a machine (judgment of 11 December 2008 in Kip Europe and Others, C‑362/07 and C‑363/07, EU:C:2008:710, paragraph 33).
48


In the third place, it should be examined whether that interpretation of the CN is called into question by the provisions of the ITA to which the referring court refers. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to equally settled case-law, even though the provisions of an agreement such as the ITA are not such as to create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the courts under EU law, where the European Union has legislated in the field in question, the primacy of international agreements concluded by the European Union over provisions of secondary Community legislation means that such provisions must, so far as is possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with those agreements (judgment of 22 November 2012 in Digitalnet and Others, C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11, EU:C:2012:745, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).