Proxxon GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Köln.
Date: 2006-02-16
17. In that regard, it is clear from settled case-law that the procedure provided for in Article 234 EC is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate. It follows that it is for the national courts alone which are seised of the case and are responsible for the judgment to be delivered to determine, in view of the special features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to give their judgment and the relevance of the questions which they put to the Court (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Dzodzi  [1990] ECR I-3763, paragraphs 33 and 34; Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher  [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraphs 18 and 19; and Case C-403/98 Monte Arcosu  [2001] ECR I-103, paragraph 21).
21. 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, Case C-42/99 Eru Portuguesa  [2000] ECR I-7691, paragraph 13; Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47; and Case C-445/04 Possehl Erzkontor  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).
22. The explanatory notes to the CN and those to the HS are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force. The content of those notes must therefore be compatible with the provisions of the CN and may not alter the meaning of those provisions ( Intermodal Transports , paragraph 48, and Possehl Erzkontor , paragraph 20).
23. 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. In any event the national court is in a better position to do so (Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 Lohman and Medi Bayreuth  [2002] ECR I-10045, paragraph 26).
24. The procedure for referring questions for a preliminary ruling which is provided for in Article 234 EC establishes a relationship of close cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice based on the assignment to each of different functions (Case C-236/98 JämO  [2000] ECR I-2189, paragraph 30) and constitutes an instrument by means of which the Court provides the national courts with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate ( Monte Arcosu , paragraph 21, and Lohman and Medi Bayreuth , paragraph 27).
26. According to the general rules, the heading which provides the most specific description is to be preferred to headings providing a more general description ( Possehl Erzkontor , paragraph 21). In this respect, note 2 to Chapter 82 of the CN provides that parts of base metal of the articles of that chapter are to be classified with the articles of which they are parts, except parts separately specified as such.
31. It must be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s case-law, the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion in relation to tariff classification if it is inherent in the product, and such inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (see, inter alia, Case C-201/99 Deutsche Nichimen  [2001] ECR I-2701, paragraph 20; Case C-130/02 Krings  [2004] ECR I-2121, paragraph 30; and Case C-467/03 Ikegami  [2005] ECR I-2389, paragraph 23).