«(Classification of goods for customs tariff purposes – Binding tariff information – Conditions for the revocation of an information)»

Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Binding tariff information – Withdrawal where the customs authorities change the interpretation of the provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned – Whether permissible (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii)) Article 9(1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that they provide the customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing a binding tariff information (BTI) where those authorities change the interpretation given therein of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned.First, in those provisions, the Community legislature has unequivocally provided that a BTI ceases to be valid where one of the conditions set for its issue was not or is no longer fulfilled. Secondly, since the issue of a BTI is subject to proper justification for the interpretation by the customs authorities of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned, those authorities are entitled to consider, where it appears to them that that interpretation is wrong, that one of the conditions laid down for the issue of a BTI is no longer fulfilled and to revoke that BTI with a view to amending the tariff classification of the goods concerned.see paras 23-25, 28, operative part

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 22 January 2004 (1)

((Classification of goods for customs tariff purposes – Binding tariff information – Conditions for the revocation of an information))

In Joined Cases C-133/02 and C-134/02,

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

and between

and

on the interpretation of Article 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 1, and Corrigendum, OJ 1997 L 179, p. 11),

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Timmermans Transport & Logistics BV and Hoogenboom Production Ltd, represented by R.G.A. Tusveld and D.L.L. van den Berg, belastingadviseurs, of the Netherlands Government, represented by S. Terstal, acting as Agent, and of the Commission, represented by H.M.H. Speyart at the hearing on 6 February 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 September 2003,

gives the following

...

...

...

at Community level, by reason of amendments to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature or by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

at international level, by reason of a classification opinion or an amendment of the explanatory notes to the Nomenclature of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, adopted by the World Customs Organisation established in 1952 under the name the Customs Cooperation Council;

In the case of paragraph 5(a)(i) and (b)(i), the Regulation or agreement may lay down a period within which the first subparagraph shall apply....

Case C-133/02

Case C-134/02

Observations submitted to the Court

The Court's answer

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by orders of 2 April 2002, hereby rules:

Gulmann

Cunha Rodrigues

Puissochet

Schintgen

Macken

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22 January 2004.

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President