1 By order of 26 August 1992, received at the Court on 12 October 1992 the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1992 L 267, p. 1).
2 That question is worded as follows: "Is the Common Customs Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1990) to be interpreted as meaning that 'coconut powder' consisting of a pasteurized, homogenized and subsequently spray-dried mixture of ground and pressed coconut pulp to which maltose and sodium caseinate are added before it is dried in order to obtain the form of a powder, as more particularly described in the grounds of this order, to be classified under subheading No 2106 90 99 as a 'food preparation not elsewhere specified or included (other)' ?"
3 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts in the main proceedings, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
4 For the reasons set out in the Opinion of the Advocate General, delivered on 16 September 1993, the answer to the question put by the national court should be that a substance consisting of a pasteurized, homogenized and subsequently spray-dried mixture of ground and pressed coconut pulp to which maltose and sodium caseinate are added before it is dried in order to obtain the form of a powder, and containing a negligible quantity of fibre and at least 5% sucrose, must be classified under subheading 2106 90 99 of the Common Customs Tariff.