Skatteministeriet v Estron A/S.
Date: 2019-05-16
34


Estron contends that the connectors at issue in the main proceedings form part of a hearing aid within the meaning of the concept of ‘part’ as defined according to settled case-law of the Court, in particular, in the judgment of 15 February 2007, RUMA (C‑183/06, EU:C:2007:110, paragraph 32). According to that case-law, the connectors at issue in the main proceedings should be classified under heading 902140 of the CN.
44


Article 3 of Regulation No 2658/87 draws a distinction between ‘headings’ and ‘subheadings’ within the CN. It is clear from that provision that the CN uses the six-digit classification of the headings and subheadings of the HS, adding seventh and eighth digits to create its own specific subdivisions (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 November 2014, Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraph 3, and of 28 April 2016, Oniors Bio, C‑233/15, EU:C:2016:305, paragraph 3).
47


It also clear from the case-law of the Court, first, that the term ‘heading’ refers to the first four digits, whereas six and eight digits are, as far as they are concerned, referred to by the term ‘subheading’. Second, within the CN, a four-digit heading is comprised of six and eight-digit subheadings (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 June 2016, MIS, C‑288/15, EU:C:2016:424, paragraph 30; of 19 October 2017, Lutz, C‑556/16, EU:C:2017:777, paragraph 39; of 22 February 2018, SAKSA, C‑185/17, EU:C:2018:108, paragraph 32; of 12 April 2018, Medtronic, C‑227/17, EU:C:2018:247, paragraphs 39 and 44; and of 6 September 2018, Kreyenhop & Kluge, C‑471/17, EU:C:2018:681, paragraphs 8 and 45).
50


In that regard, it is to be noted, first, as is clear inter alia from paragraph 45 above, that the general rules for the interpretation of the CN provide that, for legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading is to be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading, section or chapter notes, with the wording of section, chapter and subchapter titles being considered to be provided for ease of reference only (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 July 2018, Profit Europe, C‑397/17 and C‑398/17, EU:C:2018:564, paragraph 25).
51


Second, according to settled case-law, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods 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 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 34, and of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 44).
52


In addition, according to the case-law of the Court, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (judgment of 17 March 2016, Sonos Europe, C‑84/15, EU:C:2016:184, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
54


It is clear, in that regard, from the case-law of the Court that the concept of ‘parts’, within the meaning of the CN, implies a whole for the operation of which its parts are essential (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 February 2007, RUMA, C‑183/06, EU:C:2007:110, paragraph 31; of 12 December 2013, HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraphs 36 and 37; and of 20 November 2014, Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraphs 44 and 45).
57


For the purposes of determining the tariff classification of the connectors at issue in the main proceedings, it should be noted that the explanatory notes to the CN and those to the HS provide useful indications, even though such explanatory notes serve as an aid to interpretation and are not legally binding (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 45).
62


In the third place, as regards heading 9021 of the CN, the Court has previously held, on the basis inter alia of the explanatory note to the HS on Chapter 90, that goods of which the essential characteristics are the finish of their manufacture and their high degree of precision, which distinguish them from ordinary goods are classified under that heading (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 47).
67


It should nevertheless 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 (judgments of 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 27, and of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 41).