Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen.
Date: 2017-02-09
35


First of all, it must be pointed out that, 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 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 (judgment of 17 September 2015, Kyowa Hakko Europe, C‑344/14, EU:C:2015:615, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
36


Next, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s 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 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 (judgment of 17 February 2016, Salutas Pharma, C‑124/15, EU:C:2016:87, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
37


Thus, the chapter notes to the CN constitute important means for ensuring the uniform application of the common customs tariff and provide, as such, useful information for its interpretation. The content of those notes must therefore be consistent with the provisions of the CN and cannot modify its scope (judgment of 17 February 2016, Salutas Pharma, C‑124/15, EU:C:2016:87, paragraph 30).
38


Furthermore, the explanatory notes drawn up by the Commission as regards the CN and by the WCO as regards the HS are an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (judgment of 17 February 2016, Salutas Pharma, C‑124/15, EU:C:2016:87, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
39


Finally, for the purposes of classification under the appropriate heading, it should also be recalled that 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 (judgments of 20 June 2013, Agroferm, C‑568/11, EU:C:2013:407, paragraph 41, and of 4 March 2015, Oliver Medical, C‑547/13, EU:C:2015:139, paragraph 47). However, the intended use of the product is a relevant criterion only where the classification cannot be made on the sole basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the product (judgments of 16 December 2010, Skoma-Lux, C‑339/09, EU:C:2010:781, paragraph 47, and of 28 April 2016, Oniors Bio, C‑233/15, EU:C:2016:305, paragraph 33).
47


In the present case, the product at issue in the main proceedings is a mixture composed of a chemical product, calcium carbonate, and a substance with nutritive value, modified starch. In this connection, the Court has held that that the term ‘substances with nutritive value’ may apply to chemical products (judgment of 30 January 1992, SuCrest, C‑14/91, EU:C:1992:48, paragraph 10). Thus, the fact that a substance such as calcium carbonate is a chemical product does not prevent it from being regarded as a substance with nutritive value.
48


It is also apparent from the order for reference that the product at issue in the main proceedings was initially declared by the applicant in the main proceedings as ‘Calcium carbonate — Food supplement’. The Court has already held that the wording of heading 2106 of the CN refers to food preparations not elsewhere specified or included and that the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning that heading state that it includes preparations referred to as ‘food supplements’, which are presented in packagings with indications that they maintain general health or well-being (judgment of 17 December 2009, Swiss Caps, C‑410/08 to C‑412/08, EU:C:2009:794, paragraph 31).