Skoma-Lux s. r. o. v Celní ředitelství Olomouc.
Date: 2010-12-16
21. In that regard, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38; and Joined Cases C‑316/07, C‑358/07 to C‑360/07, C‑409/07 and C‑410/07 Stoß and Others  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 51).
22. According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of European Union law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑222/05 to C‑225/05 van der Weerd and Others  [2007] ECR I‑4233, paragraph 22 and case-law cited).
23. Furthermore, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria the implementation of which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori  since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event, the national court is in a better position to do so. However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, inter alia, Case C‑56/08 Pärlitigu  [2009] ECR I‑6719, paragraph 23 and case-law cited).
27. However, it follows from settled case-law that a regulation specifying the conditions for classification in a tariff heading or subheading is of a legislative nature and cannot have retroactive effect (see, inter alia, Case C-479/99 CBA Computer  [2001] ECR I‑4391, paragraph 31, and Case C-403/07 Metherma  [2008] ECR I‑8921, paragraph 39).
35. It is settled case-law that, 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 Case C‑370/08 Data I/O  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 29).
36. It should also be recalled that both the notes which precede the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the HSEN are important means of ensuring the uniform application of that tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see, inter alia, Case C‑338/95 Wiener SI  [1997] ECR I‑6495, paragraph 11, and Case C‑123/09 Roeckl Sporthandschuhe  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 29).
46. Thirdly, also according to the HSEN relating to heading 2206, the addition of alcohol to beverages coming under that heading does not preclude such beverages from retaining that classification provided that they retain the character of products coming under the heading, namely that of fermented beverages. It is apparent from the order for reference that the beverage in question has the taste, colour and smell of a beverage made from grapes. Consequently, it has not lost the particular organoleptic characteristics of a fermented beverage (see, to that effect, Case C‑150/08 Siebrand  [2009] ECR I‑3941, paragraph 37).
47. Fourthly, with regard to Skoma-Lux’s argument that since the red dessert wine Kagor VK is intended to be drunk as wine, it should be classified under heading 2204 of the CN, it should be noted that, whilst, the intended use of a product may 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 (see Case C‑183/06 RUMA  [2007] ECR I‑1559, paragraph 36, and Roeckl Sporthandschuhe , paragraph 28), the intended use of the product is a relevant criterion only where the classification can be made on the sole basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the product (see, to that effect, Case 38/76 Industriemetall LUMA  [1976] ECR 2027, paragraph 7). In this case, it follows from all of the foregoing that, in the light of its objective characteristics and properties, the beverage in question clearly comes exclusively under heading 2206 of the CN.