Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane.
Date: 2017-02-16
19


It should be observed as a preliminary point that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU, providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. With this in mind, the Court of Justice may, where necessary, have to reformulate the questions referred to it (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 October 2016, M. and S., C‑303/15, EU:C:2016:771, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
21


In that regard, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the Council of the European Union has conferred upon the Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, broad discretion to define the subject matter of tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, the Commission’s power to adopt the measures mentioned in Article 9(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of Regulation No 2658/87, like drafting additional notes, does not authorise it to alter the subject matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the HS established by the International HS Convention whose scope the European Union has undertaken, under Article 3 thereof, not to modify (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 February 2015, Raytek and Fluke Europe, C‑134/13, EU:C:2015:82, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
22


Moreover, 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 of the notes to the section or chapter (judgment of 8 December 2016, Lemnis Lighting, C‑600/15, EU:C:2016:937, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
23


Admittedly, the intended use of a product may also constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties. However, the intended use of a product is a relevant criterion only where the classification cannot be made on the sole basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the product (judgment of 9 June 2016, MIS, C‑288/15, EU:C:2016:424, paragraph 24).
24


Moreover, it should be noted that the HS Explanatory Notes 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 (judgment of 8 December 2016, Lemnis Lighting, C‑600/15, EU:C:2016:937, paragraph 37).
29


Secondly, concerning the question whether three-wheeled vehicles equipped with a steering system, whose similarity with the system equipping motor cars is limited to the fact that that system is based on the Ackermann principle, are ‘equipped with a motor car type steering system’, within the meaning of the HS Explanatory Note relating to heading 8703, it should be noted that that note states, in essence, that this heading covers motor vehicles of various types which have certain technical characteristics such as motor car type steering based on the Ackermann principle (see, in that regard, judgment of 27 April 2006, Kawasaki Motors Europe, C‑15/05, EU:C:2006:259, paragraph 43).