Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV.
Date: 2016-03-03
26


In order to answer the questions referred, it must be stated, first, 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 (see judgments in Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas, C‑330/13, EU:C:2014:1757, paragraph 33, and in Baby Dan, C‑272/14, EU:C:2015:388, paragraph 25).
27


Second, according to 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 found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, inter alia, judgments in Proxxon, C‑500/04, EU:C:2006:111, paragraph 21, and in Vario Tek, C‑178/14, EU:C:2015:152, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
28


As regards the Explanatory Notes to the HS, it must be added that, although they do not have legally binding force, they 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 (see, to that effect, judgments in Kloosterboer Services, C‑173/08, EU:C:2009:382, paragraph 25, and in Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 28). However, they cannot alter the content of the CN notes (see, to that effect, judgment in Duval, C‑44/15, EU:C:2015:783, paragraph 24).
29


Furthermore, the intended use of a product may also constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to that product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product’s objective characteristics and properties (judgments in Swiss Caps, C‑410/08 to C‑412/08, EU:C:2009:794, paragraph 29, and in Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 41).
34


Second, the soya meal, from which Imcosoy 62 is obtained, must be considered to be a defatted product, even though a presence of trifling quantities of oil may still be detected residually (see, to that effect, judgment in Fancon, 129/81, EU:C:1982:91, paragraphs 10 and 14).
36


As regards CN heading 2309, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the term ‘preparation’ under that heading means either the processing of a product, or a mixture with other products. For it to come under CN heading 2309, the product at issue in the main proceedings must still, firstly, be suitable only for animal feeding and, secondly, have been finally processed or result from a mixture of different substances (see, by analogy with regard to heading 2307 of the Common Customs Tariff of 1965, which preceded CN heading 2309, judgments in Henck, 36/71, EU:C:1972:25, paragraphs 4 and 12, and in van de Poll, 38/72, EU:C:1972:127, paragraph 5).
46


As regards, first, the exclusion, by that Explanatory Note, of agglomerated products consisting of either a single material or a mixture of several materials classified, as such, under one specific heading, it should be noted that Imcosoy 62 is composed, in particular, of proteins and starch, such that that product cannot be considered to be an agglomerated product consisting of a single material. Imcosoy 62 also cannot be classified as an agglomerated product consisting of a mixture of several materials classified, as such, under one specific heading. Admittedly, that product is derived from soya meal, which is classified, as such, under CN heading 2304 (judgment in Fancon, 129/81, EU:C:1982:91, paragraph 15). However, that derived product does not contain all the components of soya meal and cannot itself be classified under CN heading 2304, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 31 to 35 of the present judgment.