KORADO, a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel.
Date: 2019-05-15
33


As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, 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 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. Thus, the national court is in a better position to do so (see, inter alia, judgment of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 41 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, 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. In spite of the fact that they lack binding force, the explanatory notes to the HS and CN are an important aid in interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings (judgment of 12 June 2014, Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraphs 33 and 35 and the case-law cited).
36


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 relating to the sections or chapters (judgment of 25 February 2016, G. E. Security, C‑143/15, EU:C:2016:115, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).
37


The Court has also held that the intended use of a product 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 (judgments of 13 July 2006, Uroplasty, C‑514/04, EU:C:2006:464, paragraph 42, and of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 40).
43


It must be noted, in that regard, that, even though the CN does not define ‘parts’, within the meaning of CN heading 7322, 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. 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).
44


In the interests of a consistent and uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, the notion of ‘parts’, within the meaning of CN heading 7322, must be given the same definition as that established by the case-law on other chapters of the CN (see, by analogy, judgment of 12 December 2013, HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraph 37).
47


However, it must be noted that the Court has already held that the classification of a given product under CN heading 7307 as a ‘tube or pipe fitting’ and accordingly under ‘parts of general use’, within the meaning of note 2 to Section XV of the CN, rules out the classification of that product as ‘parts’ under another CN heading (judgment of 12 December 2013, HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraphs 40 to 43).
50


It must be stressed, in that regard, that, in order to be classified as ‘parts of general use’, within the meaning of note 2 to Section XV of the CN, the product at issue must, on the basis of its characteristics, and objective properties and inherent purpose, be intended to connect the bores of two tubes together or to connect a tube to some other apparatus (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 December 2013, HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraphs 41 and 42).
54


As regards the validity of Implementing Regulation 2015/23, it must be noted that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, first, that a classification regulation is adopted by the Commission when the classification in the CN of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute and, secondly, that such a regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to products identical to the one thus classified (judgments of 19 February 2009, Kamino International Logistics, C‑376/07, EU:C:2009:105, paragraph 63 and of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
56


Even assuming that that implementing regulation is applicable, the Court has previously held that such an application is not necessary where the Court, by its answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling, has provided the referring court with all the information necessary to classify a product under the appropriate CN heading (judgment of 26 April 2017, Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services, C‑51/16, EU:C:2017:298, paragraph 62)