1 By order of 22 April 1992, received at the Court on 29 May 1992, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Duesseldorf referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question concerning the interpretation of subheadings 7211 21 00 and 7211 21 90 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1988 L 298, p. 1).
2 Those questions were raised in a dispute between Jepsen Stahl GmbH ("Jepsen Stahl") and the Hauptzollamt Emmerich ("the Hauptzollamt") concerning the classification for customs purposes of a consignment of steel products imported into the Community from Poland in February 1989.
3 In the simplified declaration the plaintiff in the main proceedings, Jepsen Stahl, described the products manufactured in a universal rolling mill as "flat-rolled products of non-alloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm and a minimum yield point of less than 355 MPa, other, not further worked than hot-rolled on four faces or in a closed-box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm and a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils, smooth" and placed them under subheading 7211 21 00 of the Common Customs Tariff.
4 In the course of examining the goods, the port customs officers found that they were manifestly "flat-rolled products, of a width not exceeding 500 mm, with round edges, not rolled on four faces". According to the Hauptzollamt, the product therefore came under subheading 7211 22 90.
5 Jepsen Stahl contests the classification for customs purposes determined by the Hauptzollamt. It considers that, regard being had to the manufacturing process, the imported products are products rolled on four faces (known as "wide flats"). The rough-rolled edges observed by the port customs officers are inevitable and typical of products rolled in a universal mill.
6 In those circumstances the Finanzgericht Duesseldorf stayed the proceedings and referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: "Is subheading 7211 21 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88, to be interpreted as meaning that the characteristic of having been 'rolled on four faces' relates only to the circumstances of the product' s manufacture, or is it a further requirement that the rolling on four faces shall result in a distinctive profiling of the product, namely sharp edges to all rolled faces?"
7 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of 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.
8 By its question, the national court is essentially asking whether subheading 7211 21 00 of the Customs Tariff is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression "rolled on four faces" refers solely to the manufacturing process used or whether in addition that manufacturing process must have produced sharp edges on all the rolled faces of the product.
9 The Court has consistently held (see, in particular, Case 40/88 Weber v Milchwerke Paderborn-Rimbeck [1989] ECR 1395, paragraph 13) 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 Common Customs Tariff and of the notes to the sections or chapters.
10 With regard, more specifically, to the question whether the manufacturing process of the product has an effect on classification for customs purposes, the Court pointed out in Weber that whilst the Common Customs Tariff generally, and preferably, employs criteria for classification based on the objective characteristics and properties of products which may be ascertained when customs clearance is obtained, it refers in certain cases to manufacturing processes. In those cases the manufacturing process of a product becomes decisive.
11 The wording of subheading 7211 21 00 of the Common Customs Tariff expressly refers to the manufacturing process where it states that the products must be "rolled on four faces or in a closed-box pass". Contrary to the contention of the defendant in the main proceedings, the English version of the subheading does not support a different interpretation. The decisive nature of the manufacturing process is further confirmed by the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System relating to heading 7211, which also apply to subheading 7211 21 00, and which state that that heading covers wide flats which "are products of rectangular (other than square) cross section ... hot-rolled on four faces in a closed-box pass or universal mill ...".
12 The defendant has claimed that, on the contrary, according to Euronorm 91-81, it is the result of the process, rather than the process actually employed, which determines the classification for customs purposes.
13 In that regard, it should be pointed out that Euronorms are standards adopted by the European Committee for Standardization and concern only the definition of steel products, independently of their classification for customs purposes. Those standards cannot therefore constitute a criterion in this case.
14 The answer to the national court' s question must therefore be that subheading 7211 21 00 of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version published in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88, is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression "rolled on four faces" refers solely to the manufacturing process employed, whether or not that manufacturing process causes sharp edges to appear on all the rolled faces of the product.