Kip Europe SA and Others (C-362/07) and Hewlett Packard International SARL (C-363/07) v Administration des douanes - Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects.
Date: 2008-12-11
26. It is appropriate to bear in mind settled case-law, in accordance with which, 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).
27. Both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the SH 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).
32. It follows from the wording of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the CN 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).
33. Furthermore, it follows from the general scheme and purpose of that note that the expression ‘are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions’ does not seek to have one function take priority over others also performed by the apparatus to be classified and which also constitute data processing, but to prevent apparatus whose function has nothing to do with data processing from being classified under heading 8471 for the sole reason that they incorporate an automatic data-processing machine or work in connection with such a machine.
34. That interpretation is confirmed by the judgment in Case C‑467/03 Ikegami  [2005] ECR I‑2389, paragraphs 25 and 26, in which the Court held that a machine whose basic equipment enables it to perform automatic data processing must nevertheless be considered to have a specific function within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the CN since, as equipped, it cannot be used for purposes other than the recording and reproduction of images and sounds in the course of video surveillance, as it lacks sufficient software.
39. In order to answer those questions, it is necessary to state, as a preliminary point, that, as is apparent from the wording of General Rule 1, for legal purposes, classification is determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, before the other provisions of the General Rules come to bear. General Rule 3 applies only when it is apparent that goods must be classified under a number of headings.
49. In such a case, machines made up of different components, that is to say either a printer module and a scanner module, or a printer module, a scanner module and a computer module, should be classified, by application of General Rule 3(b), according to the module which, of those two or three modules, is identified as determining their essential character, provided such identification is possible. If that is not the case, in accordance with General Rule 3(c), they are to be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.
59. It is apparent from case-law, firstly, that a classification regulation, such as Regulation No 400/2006, 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).
60. It is also apparent from case-law that, in the interpretation of a classification regulation, in order to determine its scope, account must be taken inter alia of the reasons given (see Hewlett Packard , paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
62. Accordingly, since it classifies machines capable of performing printing, electronic scanning and reproduction operations under subheading 9009 12 00 by application of General Rules 1, 3(c) and 6, of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the CN and of the wording of heading and subheading 9009 and 9009 12 00, on the ground that none of the functions corresponding to those operations can be regarded as a giving those machines their essential character, without, in principle, requiring all machines having those three functions to be classified as photocopiers, Regulation No 400/2006 is valid.