GROFA GmbH and Others v Hauptzollamt Hannover and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.
Date: 2017-03-22
35


It should be noted, first, that it is settled case-law that 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 (see judgment of 15 December 2016, LEK, C‑700/15, EU:C:2016:959, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
37


Secondly, it should be noted that according to the settled case-law of the Court 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 (judgment of 22 September 2016, Kawasaki Motors Europe, C‑91/15, EU:C:2016:716, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). The application by analogy of a classification regulation, such as Implementing Regulation No 1249/2011, to products similar to those covered by that regulation facilitates a coherent interpretation of the CN and the equal treatment of traders (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 2006, Anagram International, C‑14/05, EU:C:2006:465, paragraph 32).
38


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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 February 2009, Kamino International Logistics, C‑376/07, EU:C:2009:105, paragraph 67). In that regard, it is also necessary to take into account the reasons given for that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 July 2006, Anagram International, C‑14/05, EU:C:2006:465, paragraph 34 and of 4 March 2015, Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraph 58).
40


Moreover, it should be recalled that 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 (judgments of 20 June 2013 in Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 41, and of 4 March 2015 in Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraph 47).
49


It should be pointed out in that connection that a classification regulation, such as, in this case, Regulation No 876/2014, is adopted by the Commission on the advice of the Customs Code Committee where the classification in the CN of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute. According to the case-law of the Court, the Council of the European Union has conferred upon the Commission, acting in cooperation with the customs experts of the Member States, a 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 referred to in Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 254/2000, does not authorise it to alter the subject matter and the scope of the tariff headings (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 March 2004, Krings, C‑130/02, EU:C:2004:122, paragraphs 25 and 26 and the case-law cited).