SIA Kurcums Metal v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.
Date: 2012-11-15
28. 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 that court to classify the goods at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, in particular 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 national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (Case C‑12/10 Lecson Elektromobile  [2010] ECR I‑14173, paragraph 15 and the case‑law cited).
29. It is also settled case‑law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods 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 section or chapter notes ( Lecson Elektromobile , paragraph 16 and the case‑law cited).
30. The explanatory notes drawn up by the European Commission as regards the CN and by the World Customs Organisation as regards the HS are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see, inter alia, Case C‑423/10 Delphi Deutschland  [2011] ECR I‑4003, paragraph 24).
36. It should be observed, to begin with, that, contrary to the submissions of Kurcums Metal, general rule 3(a) for the interpretation of the CN does not apply to the tariff classification of cables such as those at issue in the main proceedings. Having regard to the second sentence of that general rule and in the light of paragraph 33 above, neither of the two CN subheadings at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as the more specific, within the meaning of that general rule.
37. With respect to general rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the CN, it must be recalled that, under that rule, in carrying out the tariff classification of goods it is necessary to identify, from among the materials of which they are composed, the one which gives them their essential character; this may be done by determining whether the goods would retain their characteristic properties if one or other of their constituents were removed (Case C‑250/05 Turbon International  [2005] ECR I‑10531, paragraph 21 and the case‑law cited, and Case C‑173/08 Kloosterboer Services  [2009] ECR I‑5347, paragraph 31).
38. In the same way, as stated in point VIII of the explanatory note to the HS on general rule 3(b), the factor which determines the essential character of the goods may, depending on the type of goods, be determined for example by the nature of the constituent material or components, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods ( Turbon International , paragraph 22, and Kloosterboer Services , paragraph 32).
46. Kurcums Metal argues, however, that, in the version published in Latvian, Regulation No 1601/2001 does not provide for anti-dumping duties to apply to goods which, in 2007, were covered by CN subheading 7312 10 98. Referring to Case C‑161/06 Skoma-Lux  [2007] ECR I‑10841, paragraph 51, it submits that the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) precludes obligations laid down in European Union legislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union  in the language of a new Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, from being imposed on individuals in that State, even though those persons could have acquainted themselves with that legislation by other means.
48. It is settled case‑law that the wording used in one language version of a provision of European Union law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement for uniform application of European Union law. Where there is a divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question must thus be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and the purpose of the rules of which it forms part (see, inter alia, Case C‑41/09 Commission  v Netherlands  [2011] ECR I‑831, paragraph 44 and the case‑law cited).