SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) and Direcţia Generală a Vămilor.
Date: 2019-05-02
22


As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, according to the case-law of the Court, the applicable version of the CN is the version that was in force on the day on which the national decision which established the contested tariff classification was adopted (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 June 2006, Sachsenmilch, C‑196/05, EU:C:2006:383, paragraph 18).
27


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the general rules for the interpretation of the CN provide that the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any section or chapter notes, the titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters being provided for ease of reference only (judgment of 15 November 2018, Baby Dan, C‑592/17, EU:C:2018:913, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
28


In the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties, as defined in the wording of the relevant CN heading and of the notes to the sections or chapters (judgment of 13 September 2018, Vision Research Europe, C‑372/17, EU:C:2018:708, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
29


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 (judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). Among the factors relevant in that regard, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use (judgment of 4 March 2015, Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraph 52).
31


The Court has made clear, in that regard, that it is necessary to take into account what consumers would consider to be ancillary or principal (judgment of 11 June 2015, Amazon EU, C‑58/14, EU:C:2015:385, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
40


In that regard, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, a classification regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to products which are the same as that examined by the Customs Code Committee. In the interpretation of a classification regulation, in order to determine its scope, account must be taken, inter alia, of its statement of reasons (judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
41


If a classification regulation is not directly applicable to products which are not identical, but only similar to the product covered by that regulation, the latter is applicable by analogy to such products. The application by analogy of a classification regulation to products similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders (judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
42


It is still necessary, in order for a classification regulation to be applied by analogy, for the goods to be classified and those covered by the classification regulation to be sufficiently similar. In that regard, it is also necessary to take into account the reasons given for that regulation (judgment of 22 March 2017, GROFA and Others, C‑435/15 and C‑666/15, EU:C:2017:232, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).