Rohm Semiconductor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Date: 2014-11-20
3. The CN is based on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council, now the World Customs Organisation (WCO), and established by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System concluded at Brussels on 14 June 1983, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1). It uses the six-digit classification of the headings and subheadings of the HS, adding seventh and eighth digits to create its own specific subdivisions.
23. It must first be recalled that it is clear from the settled case-law of the Court 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 the implementation of 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. However, in order to give the referring court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide that court with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, inter alia, judgments in Data I/O , C‑370/08, EU:C:2010:284, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited, and in Data I/O , C‑297/13, EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
24. Next, as Rohm Semiconductor and the European Commission submit, in order to ensure 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 their properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and in the section or chapter notes (see, inter alia, judgments in Peacock , C‑339/98, EU:C:2000:573, paragraph 9; Codirex Expeditie , C‑400/06, EU:C:2007:519, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited; and Sysmex Europe , C‑480/13, EU:C:2014:2097, paragraph 29).
25. Finally, the Explanatory Notes drawn up by the Commission as regards the CN and by the WCO as regards the HS may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see, to that effect, judgments in Data I/O , EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited, and Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas , C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
27. Secondly, so far as heading 8543 is concerned, it applies to an electrical machine or apparatus only if it has an individual function, and if it cannot be classified under other headings of Chapter 85 of the CN (see, to that effect, judgment in X , EU:C:2008:535, paragraphs 27 and 28).
33. Secondly, as the Commission notes in its written observations, the fact that modules such as those at issue in the main proceedings are composed of elements which, considered in isolation, could each be classified under CN heading 8541, is not such as to call into question their classification under another heading, since, as a result of the assembly of those elements, they constitute products that are distinct from those elements (see, by analogy, judgment in Kloosterboer Services , C‑173/08, EU:C:2009:382, paragraph 29).
38. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that Court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, judgments in Pohotovosť , C‑470/12, EU:C:2014:101, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited, and Kušionová , C‑34/13, EU:C:2014:2189, paragraph 38).
44. The notion of ‘parts’, within the meaning of Note 2 of Section XVI of the CN, is not defined by the latter. In the interests of a consistent and uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, the Court has given that notion a single definition common to all the chapters of the CN (see, to that effect, judgment in HARK , C‑450/12, EU:C:2013:824, paragraph 37).
45. 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 ‘parts’ implies a whole for the functioning of which the part is essential (judgments in Peacock, EU:C:2000:573, paragraph 21, and Data I/O , EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
46. In order to be able to classify a product as a ‘part’, it is not sufficient to show that, without that product, 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 product (judgments in HARK , EU:C:2013:824, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited, and in Data I/O , EU:C:2014:331, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).