Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV.
Date: 2009-02-19
31. It is appropriate to recall that, in accordance with 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, inter alia, Case C‑142/06 Olicom  [2007] ECR I‑6675, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
32. Both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council are important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see Case C‑11/93 Siemens Nixdorf  [1994] ECR I‑1945, paragraph 12; Case C‑382/95 Techex  [1997] ECR I‑7363, paragraph 12; Case C‑339/98 Peacock  [2000] ECR I‑8947, paragraph 10; and Olicom , paragraph 17).
33. In the present case, the wording of heading 8471, within which, according to Kamino, the monitors at issue in the main proceedings fall, refers, inter alia, to automatic data-processing machines and their components, whereas the wording of heading 8528, in which, according to the Dutch Government and the Commission, those monitors should be classified, relates, inter alia, to television reception apparatus and video monitors.  Subheading 8471 60 90 includes in particular data entry or production units other than printers and keyboards which may contain units of memory in the same housing, while subheading 8528 21 90 includes colour video monitors.
37. It follows from the wording of that note that the ‘specific function’ performed by a machine working with an automatic data-processing machine must be a function ‘other than data processing’ (see Olicom , paragraph 30).
41. Accordingly, it must be considered whether, as Kamino submits, such monitors fall within heading 8471 as units of an automatic data-processing machine since they meet the three conditions laid down in Note 5(B)(a) to (c) to Chapter 84 of the CN, that is to say, they are of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-processing system, are connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units and are capable of receiving or delivering data in a form which can be used by the system.
43. Both the Netherlands Government and the Commission submit that Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the CN must be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the monitors at issue in the main proceedings are able to display images coming from sources other than an automatic data-processing machine precludes their classification in heading 8471.
44. That interpretation of Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the CN, the wording of which expressly takes into consideration two categories of units of automatic data-processing machines, that is to say that relating to the kind used ‘solely’ in an automatic data processing system and that relating to units used ‘principally’ in such a system, cannot, however, be accepted.
45. As the Advocate General observed in point 33 of his Opinion, such an interpretation would amount to removal of the term ‘principally’ from the text of that note.
47. In that regard, it is settled case-law that the Explanatory Notes drafted by the Commission, in respect of the CN, and those adopted by the WCO, in respect of the HS, are an important aid for interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see, inter alia, Case C‑311/04 Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht  [2006] ECR I‑609, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
48. The content of the Explanatory Notes to the CN, which do not take the place of those of the HS but should be regarded as complementary to them (see, to that effect, Case C‑486/06 Van Landeghem  [2007] ECR I‑10661, paragraph 36), and consulted jointly with them, must accordingly be compatible with its provisions and may not alter the scope of those provisions (see, in particular, Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht , paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
49. If the Explanatory Notes referred to in paragraph 46 above were to be interpreted, as suggested by the Netherlands Government and the Commission, as precluding the classification in subheading 8471 60 90 of all monitors capable of displaying signals coming both from an automatic data-processing machine and from other sources, those Explanatory Notes would have the effect of amending and, in particular, of restricting the scope of Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the CN.
50. It follows that, even if the Explanatory Notes to the CN relating to subheading 8471 60 90 and the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8471 of the HS were to be interpreted in that manner, in particular the first sentence of point 1 of Part One, Chapter I(D), regarding display units of automatic data-processing machines, those Notes should, in that regard, be considered inapplicable, since that interpretation does not accord with Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the CN.
57. In that regard, it must be found, contrary to the submissions of both the Netherlands Government and the Commission, that the number and type of sockets with which monitors such as those at issue in the main proceedings are equipped cannot, alone, constitute decisive criteria for the tariff classification of such monitors and that, for that purpose, an assessment must be made, in relation also to other criteria and in the light of the characteristics and objective properties of those monitors, both as to the degree to which they are capable of performing a number of functions and as to the standard of performance which they achieve when performing those functions.
59. In the present case, for the purposes of the tariff classification of monitors such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it is appropriate to refer to the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8471 of the HS, in particular to points 1 to 5 of Part One, Chapter I(D), relating to display units of automatic data-processing machines.
60. In that regard, it is apparent from those points that the monitors used principally in an automatic data-processing system can be identified not only by the fact that they are fitted with standard sockets for connection to data-processing systems, but also by other technical characteristics, in particular by the fact that they are intended to be viewed close up, that they cannot display television signals, that they have low magnetic field emissions, that their display pitch starts at 0.41 mm for medium resolution and gets smaller as the resolution increases, that their bandwidth is 15 MHz or greater and that the dimension of the pixels on the screen is smaller than for video monitors in heading 8528, whereas the convergence of the former is greater than that of the latter.
63. It is apparent from case-law, firstly, that a classification regulation, such as Regulation No 754/2004, 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, 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 (see, to that effect, Case C‑119/99 Hewlett Packard  [2001] ECR I‑3981, paragraphs 18 and 19, and Kip Europe and Others , paragraph 59).
67. It must be added that, although the application by analogy of a classification regulation to goods similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders (see Case C‑130/02 Krings  [2004] ECR I‑2121, paragraph 35, and Case C‑14/05 Anagram International  [2006] ECR I‑6763, paragraph 32), it is still necessary, in such a case, for the goods to be classified and those covered by the classification regulation to be sufficiently similar.
69. Since the monitors at issue in the main proceedings are neither identical nor sufficiently analogous to the goods classified under Regulation No 754/2004, it follows that that regulation does not apply to those monitors.  Consequently, it is not necessary to assess its validity.