G.E. Security BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2016-02-25
41


As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that, 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 judgment in Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 27).
44


Secondly, 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 in the section or chapter notes (see judgment in Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
45


As regards the Explanatory Notes to the HS, it must be added that, in spite of the fact that they lack 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 (see judgments in Kloosterboer Services, C‑173/08, EU:C:2009:382, paragraph 25, and Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 28). The same applies to the Explanatory Notes to the CN (see, to that effect, judgments in Develop Dr. Eisbein, C‑35/93, EU:C:1994:252, paragraph 21, and British Sky Broadcasting Group and Pace, C‑288/09 and C‑289/09, EU:C:2011:248, paragraph 92).
55


It follows from that information and the description of the video multiplexer given by the referring court, as set out in paragraphs 24 to 33 above, that the video multiplexer, having regard to its objective characteristics and properties and its intended purpose, has a principal function of recording and reproducing video within a security and surveillance system.
59


It is clear from the case-law of the Court that Note 2 to Section XVI of the CN applies only to the tariff classification ‘parts of machines’ (see judgment in Data I/O, C‑297/13, EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 34).
60


Given that the notion ‘part’, for the purposes of that note, is not defined by that note, the Court, in the interests of a consistent and uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, has given that notion a single definition common to all the chapters of the CN (see, to that effect, judgments in HARK, C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraph 37, and Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraph 44).
61


It is clear from the case-law of the Court concerning heading 8473 and Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the CN that the notion of ‘part’ implies a whole for the functioning of which the part is essential (see, to that effect, judgment in Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
62


In order to be able to classify an article as a ‘part’, it is not sufficient to show that, without that article, the machine is not able to function properly. It remains necessary to establish that the mechanical or electrical functioning of the machine in question is dependent upon that article (see judgment in Rohm Semiconductor, C‑666/13, EU:C:2014:2388, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
71


It is clear from the wording of that heading that it covers ‘electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in [Chapter 85 of the CN]’. Thus, the classification of a product under the same heading is feasible only if it is not possible to classify that product under another heading of Chapter 85. It follows from paragraph 57 above that that is not the case in the main proceedings.