JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

10 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 3921 – Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics – Heading 4811 – Paper and paperboard, coated, impregnated or covered with plastics – Product consisting of different materials – Decorative paper impregnated with resin )

In Case T‑304/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 16 April 2025, received at the Court on 25 April 2025, in the proceedings

Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Ruse pri Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

v

‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ EOOD,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of N. Półtorak, President, G. Hesse, G. Steinfatt (Rapporteur), D. Petrlík and I. Dimitrakopoulos, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Brkan,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the transfer of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 14 May 2025, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Ruse pri Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, by V. Petrov and Y. Yakimov, acting as Agents,

–        ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’, by D. Yordanov, lawyer,

–        the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and T. Tsingileva, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by A. Demeneix and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of headings 3921 and 4811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1998 of 20 September 2022 (OJ 2022 L 282, p. 1) (‘the CN’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between the Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Ruse pri Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ (Director of the Regional Customs Directorate of Ruse attached to the Customs Agency, Bulgaria; ‘the Director of Customs of Ruse’) and ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ EOOD, a company incorporated under Bulgarian law, concerning a decision imposing on that company the payment of additional customs duties in the amount of 4 229.67 leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 2 120) and value added tax (VAT) in the amount of BGN 845.72 (approximately EUR 425), as well as the interest thereon.

 Legal context

 International law

3        The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) was drawn up by the Customs Co-operation Council, now the World Customs Organization (WCO), established by the Convention establishing a Customs Co-operation Council, concluded in Brussels on 15 December 1950. The HS was established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983 (OJ 1987 L 198 p. 3; ‘the HS Convention’), approved, with its Protocol of Amendment of 24 June 1986, on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).

4        The WCO approves, under the conditions laid down in Article 8 of the HS Convention, the Explanatory Notes and Classification Opinions adopted by the HS Committee established by Article 6 of that convention.

5        Under Article 3(1)(a) of the HS Convention, each Contracting Party undertakes that its customs tariff and statistical nomenclatures will be in conformity with the HS, first, by using all the headings and the subheadings of the HS without addition or modification, together with their related numerical codes, second, by applying the ‘General Rules for the interpretation of the [HS]’ and all the section, chapter and subheading notes without modifying their scope, and, third, by following the numerical sequence of the HS.

6        Rule 2 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS provides:

‘(a)      …

(b)      Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of [r]ule 3.’

7        Rule 3 of the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS is worded as follows:

‘When by application of [r]ule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:

(a)      The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.

(b)      Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to [rule] 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable.

(c)      When goods cannot be classified by reference to [rule] 3(a) or 3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.’

8        The explanatory note relating to rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS states:

‘(VI)      This second method relates only to:

(i)      Mixtures.

(ii)      Composite goods consisting of different materials.

…

(VIII)      The factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods.

…’

9        Section VII of the HS is headed ‘Plastics and articles thereof; rubber and articles thereof’.

10      Chapter 39 of section VII of the HS, entitled ‘Plastics and articles thereof’, includes the following heading and subheading:

‘3921      Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics

…

3921.90 – Other[.]’

11      The Explanatory Notes to the HS related to Chapter 39 state the following, inter alia:

‘This [c]hapter also covers the following products, whether they have been obtained by a single operation or by a number of successive operations provided that they retain the essential character of articles of plastics:

(a)      …

(b)      Plates, sheets, etc., of plastics, separated by a layer of another material such as metal foil, paper, paperboard.

Products consisting of paper or paperboard covered with a thin protective sheet of plastics on both faces are excluded from this [c]hapter provided they retain the essential character of paper or paperboard (generally heading 48.11).

(c)      Paper‑reinforced stratified sheeting of plastics, and products consisting of one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness, other than wall coverings of heading 48.14.

(d)      Products consisting of glass fibres or sheets of paper, impregnated with plastics and compressed together, provided they have a hard, rigid character. (If having more the character of paper or of articles of glass fibres they are classified in Chapter 48 or 70, as the case may be.)’

12      Under the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning heading 3921:

‘This heading covers plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics, other than those of heading 39.18, 39.19 or 39.20 or of Chapter 54. It therefore covers only cellular products or those which have been reinforced, laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials.’

13      Section X of the HS is entitled ‘Pulp of wood or other fibrous cellulosic material; recovered (waste and scrap) paper or paperboard; paper and paperboard and articles thereof’.

14      Chapter 48 of section X of the HS, entitled ‘Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard’, includes the following heading and subheadings:

‘4811      Paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, coated, impregnated, covered, surface-coloured, surface-decorated or printed, in rolls or rectangular (including square) sheets, of any size, other than goods of the kind described in heading 4803, 4809 or 4810.

…

4811.49 – – Other

– Paper and paperboard coated, impregnated or covered with plastics (excluding adhesives):

…

4811.59 – – Other[.]’

15      The Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 48 state the following:

‘2.      This [c]hapter does not cover:

…

(g)      Paper-reinforced stratified sheeting of plastics, or one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness, or articles of such materials, other than wall coverings of heading 48.14 (Chapter 39);

…’

16      The Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to heading 4811 state the following:

‘Paper and paperboard are classified in this heading only if they are in strips or rolls or in rectangular (including square) sheets, of any size. … this heading applies to the following in rolls or sheets:

…

(C)      Paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, coated or covered, provided in the case of paper or paperboard coated or covered with plastics, the layer of plastics does not constitute more than half the total thickness (See [n]ote 2(g) to this [c]hapter).

…’

 European Union law

 Regulation No 952/2013

17      Under Article 57, entitled ‘Tariff classification of goods’, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1):

‘1.      For the application of the Common Customs Tariff, tariff classification of goods shall consist in the determination of one of the subheadings or further subdivisions of the Combined Nomenclature under which those goods are to be classified.

2.      …

3.      The subheading or further subdivision determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be used for the purpose of applying the measures linked to that subheading.

4.      The Commission may adopt measures to determine the tariff classification of goods in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2.’

 The CN

18      As is apparent from Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2658/87, the CN, established by the European Commission, governs the tariff classification of goods imported into the European Union. According to Article 3(1) of that regulation, that nomenclature reproduces the six-digit headings and subheadings of the HS, with only the seventh and eighth digits creating further subheadings that are specific to the CN.

19      It is apparent from the file before the Court that the version of the CN applicable to the facts at issue in the main proceedings is that resulting from Implementing Regulation 2022/1998.

20      Section I of Part One of the CN contains Section A, entitled ‘General rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature’, which provides:

‘Classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature shall be governed by the following principles:

1. The titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.

…

2.      …

(b)      Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3.

3.      When, by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:

(a)      the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods;

(b)      mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to rule 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable;

(c)      when goods cannot be classified by reference to rule 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.

…’

21      Chapter 39 of the CN is entitled ‘Plastics and articles thereof’.

22      Note 1 to Chapter 39 of the CN states as follows:

‘Throughout the nomenclature, the expression “plastics” means those materials of headings 3901 to 3914 which are or have been capable, either at the moment of polymerisation or at some subsequent stage, of being formed under external influence (usually heat and pressure, if necessary with a solvent or plasticiser) by moulding, casting, extruding, rolling or other process into shapes which are retained on the removal of the external influence.’

23      Heading 3921 of the CN is worded as follows:

24      Chapter 48 of the CN is entitled ‘Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard’.

25      The notes to Chapter 48 of the CN state as follows:

‘1.      …

2.      This chapter does not cover:

…

(g)      Paper‑reinforced stratified sheeting of plastics, or one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness, or articles of such materials, other than [wall coverings] of heading 4814 (Chapter 39);

…’

26      Heading 4811 of the CN is worded as follows:

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

27      ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ imported a good from Belarus, which it declared on 15 May 2023 as ‘paper impregnated with melamine’, and which it classified under the Integrated Tariff of the European Union (‘the TARIC code’) 4811 59 00 90 (‘the product in question’). It charged that product at a customs duty rate of 0% and VAT in the amount of BGN 13 014.36 (approximately EUR 6 500).

28      A sample of the product in question was taken for tariff classification verification and sent to the Tsentralna mitnicheska laboratoria (central customs laboratory, Bulgaria) for analysis.

29      According to the findings in the central customs laboratory’s expert report, by its appearance, the product in question is similar to a plastic sheet, which can be bent, but is very brittle. The plastic has been identified as a melamine-formaldehyde resin (‘melamine resin’). The observation of the structure of the sample analysed showed that that product consisted of paper heavily impregnated with that resin, the texture of the paper having entirely disappeared and not recognisable as such. The sheets broke when folded and had lost their essential character as paper, which was, namely, the ability to bend without breaking. According to that report, the product should be classified in Chapter 39 of the CN relating to ‘plastics and articles thereof’.

30      ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ disagreed with the classification of the central customs laboratory. It submitted an analysis carried out in Greece and posed additional questions to the central customs laboratory. By a service note, that laboratory provided detailed explanations on the tariff classification of the product in question and confirmed its conclusion that the objective characteristics of that product met the criteria for classification under heading 3921, subheading 3921 90, of the CN.

31      On the basis of the expert report and the service note of the central customs laboratory, the Director of Customs of Ruse adopted, on 4 December 2023, a decision by which he refused TARIC code 4811 59 00 90 declared in respect of the product in question and assigned that good the new TARIC code 3921 90 49 00, setting the rate of customs duty at 6.5%, that is to say, at an amount of BGN 4 229.67, and the outstanding VAT at an amount of BGN 845.72.

32      ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ challenged the decision of the Director of Customs of Ruse before the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas, Bulgaria). The company presented a description of the technical process for the manufacture of the product in question. It is apparent from that description that that product is decorative paper, soaked (impregnated) with thermosetting resins which are not fully cured, used for coating boards in multi-layer and short-cycle hot presses.

33      At the request of ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’, the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas) ordered the opinion of a chemical expert (‘the expert opinion’). That opinion concerned the sample analysed by the central customs laboratory and a sample, supplied by ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’, of a good manufactured by the same manufacturer as that of the good analysed by that laboratory.

34      According to the expert, the sample provided by ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’ consists of solid, brittle sheets of a white colour and the sample analysed as part of the central customs laboratory’s expert report is a fragile material of a light brown colour. The two products have a smooth surface, unlike paper. The two samples impregnated with melamine resin have a middle layer of resin-impregnated paper, and two surface layers consisting of the same resin in its pure form. According to the expert, the presence of melamine resin was qualitatively established in the customs expert report. The analysis of the surface layer of the two samples impregnated with melamine resin revealed that the only difference between those samples was the greater absorption of the sample analysed by the central customs laboratory, because of additional polymerisation processes which could be due to the fact that melamine-formaldehyde is not a stable product. After two to five months, it becomes a fully polymerised and insoluble product which is no longer capable of further processing, that is to say, a product which is no longer suitable for use in accordance with its intended purpose.

35      The expert also noted that the quantitative determination of the sample’s content carried out by the central customs laboratory was incorrect because the method used, by means of selective dissolution in formic acid, was unsuitable. It determined, in relation to the sample provided by ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’, an approximate content of non-polymerised resin of 10.4%, polymerised resin of 42.7%, water of 8.4% and mineral fillers of 13.2% and, regarding the sample analysed by the central customs laboratory, an approximate content of polymerised resin of 63.2%, water of 9.1% and mineral fillers of 7.4%. It also found that the latter sample did not contain non-polymerised resin. The expert also noted that the paper used to manufacture the product was of low quality, with a significant content of volatile substances (4%) and mineral fillers (26.7%).

36      The Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas) annulled, due to a breach of the essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, the decision of the Director of Customs of Ruse concerning the examination of the sample by the central customs laboratory.

37      In addition, the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas) held, on the basis of the description of the technical process and the expert opinion, that the product in question had not lost its character as paper, given that, just after its manufacture and before being used in the manufacture of furniture such as furniture with a laminated coating, the resin on the paper was not fully cured. Consequently, it concluded that there was no need to amend the TARIC code declared by ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’.

38      The Director of Customs of Ruse brought an appeal against the judgment of the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas) before the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), which is the referring court.

39      The referring court considers that the present case raises the questions whether the classification of the product in question must be carried out in accordance with rule 3(a) or rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, whether the explanatory notes to Chapters 39 and 48 of the HS are relevant in the present case and whether or not the fact that the product in question has lost its character as paper is significant. According to that court, the present case also raises the question whether the brittleness of the product in question, as an objective characteristic of that product, as well as its composite nature and intended purpose, as a laminated coating resistant to water and heat, constitute criteria which must be taken into account in order to determine which component of that product gives it its essential character.

40      Thus, the referring court considers that it is necessary to clarify the criteria the application of which will enable the product in question to be classified correctly in the CN.

41      Under those circumstances, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is the [CN] to be interpreted as meaning that a product described by the manufacturer as decorative paper soaked (impregnated) with thermosetting [resins which are not fully cured], used for coating boards in multi-layer and short-cycle hot presses, and which, according to a[n] expert opinion, is a composite material (paper base impregnated with resin … with two [surface] layers of pure resin[)], the synthetic polymer (resin) having penetrated the natural polymer (cellulose), must be classified under heading 4811, or must it be classified under heading 3921?’

 Consideration of the question referred

42      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the CN must be interpreted as meaning that composite goods consisting of a layer of decorative paper impregnated with thermosetting resins which are not fully cured, with two surface layers of pure resin, and used for coating boards in multi-layer and short-cycle hot presses fall under heading 3921 of that nomenclature or under heading 4811 thereof.

43      In order to answer the question referred, it must be noted that, when the EU judicature 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 national court to classify the products concerned correctly in the CN rather than to effect such a classification itself. That classification results from a purely factual assessment which it is not for the Court to make in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (see judgment of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

44      In accordance with rule 1 of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, the tariff classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes to that nomenclature. In the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of those goods is, in general, to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as they are defined in the wording of the relevant headings of the CN and of the section or chapter notes (see judgment of 28 November 2024, BG Technik, C‑129/23 and C‑567/23, EU:C:2024:995, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). The intended use of a product may also constitute an objective criterion for classification, on the condition that 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 (see judgments of 22 June 2023, PR Pet, C‑24/22, EU:C:2023:507, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

45      In addition, although the Explanatory Notes to the HS and the Explanatory Notes to the CN do not have binding force, they are an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff. Those explanatory notes may provide useful guidance to interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff (see judgments of 25 May 2023, Danish Fluid System Technologies, C‑368/22, EU:C:2023:427, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2025, Prisum Healthcare, C‑252/24, EU:C:2025:339, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

46      In the present case, it follows from the very wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling that the product in question is a composite good, consisting of a layer of paper impregnated with melamine resin and two surface layers of pure resin.

47      As regards the CN headings referred to in the question referred for a preliminary ruling, first, it is apparent from the wording of heading 3921 of that nomenclature that that heading covers ‘other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics’.

48      Heading 3921 of the CN forms part of Chapter 39 of that nomenclature, entitled ‘Plastics and articles thereof’. In accordance with the definition of the concept of ‘plastics’ appearing in note 1 to that chapter of the CN, melamine resin constitutes plastics in so far as it falls under heading 3909 of that nomenclature.

49      Furthermore, it is apparent from point (b) of the first subparagraph of the paragraph relating to combinations of plastics and materials other than textiles, of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, that that chapter includes, inter alia, ‘plates, sheets, etc., of plastics, separated by a layer of another material such as metal foil, paper, paperboard’.

50      In addition, point (b) of the second subparagraph of the paragraph relating to combinations of plastics and materials other than textiles, of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, states that ‘products consisting of paper or paperboard covered with a thin protective sheet of plastics on both faces are excluded from this [c]hapter provided they retain the essential character of paper or paperboard (generally heading 4811)’.

51      Lastly, it is apparent from point (d) of the first subparagraph of the paragraph relating to combinations of plastics and materials other than textiles, of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, that that chapter covers products consisting of sheets of paper, impregnated with plastics, provided they have a hard, rigid character. If having more the character of paper those products are classified in Chapter 48.

52      Therefore, it is apparent from the wording of heading 3921 of the CN, read in the light of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, that that heading includes products containing paper and plastics, which in turn includes sheets of paper impregnated with plastics.

53      Second, heading 4811 of the CN forms part of Chapter 48 of that nomenclature, which is entitled ‘Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard’.

54      It is apparent from the wording of heading 4811 of the CN that that heading covers, inter alia, ‘paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, coated, impregnated, covered, surface-coloured, surface-decorated or printed, in rolls or rectangular (including square) sheets, of any size, other than goods of the kind described in heading 4803, 4809 or 4810’.

55      It follows from the wording of subheading 4811 49 of the CN that heading 4811 of the CN covers, inter alia, paper and paperboard coated, impregnated or covered with plastics.

56      In the light of the foregoing and of the fact that the product in question is a composite good composed of paper and melamine resin, that product appears capable of being classified under heading 3921 or under heading 4811 of the CN.

57      Thus, it is necessary to classify the product in question pursuant to rule 3 of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, which lays down the classification methods applicable where composite goods appear classifiable under several headings. Paragraphs (a) to (c) of rule 3 lay down interpretation methods each of which is subsidiary to the previous method, since recourse can be had to one of those methods only if the preceding method in alphanumerical order was unable to determine the tariff classification applicable to the goods concerned (judgment of 22 June 2023, PR Pet, C‑24/22, EU:C:2023:507, paragraph 62).

58      According to the first sentence of rule 3(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, the heading which provides the most specific description is to be preferred to headings providing a more general description.

59      The second sentence of rule 3(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN states that, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials contained in mixed or composite goods, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.

60      Thus, with regard to the second sentence of rule 3(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN and the information set out in paragraphs 46 and 56 above, neither heading 3921 of the CN nor heading 4811 thereof can be regarded as being ‘the most specific’ within the meaning of rule 3(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN.

61      In those circumstances, it is appropriate, for the purposes of the tariff classification of the product in question, to apply rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN (see paragraph 57 above).

62      Under rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, in carrying out the tariff classification of the product in question it is necessary to identify, from among the materials of which it is composed, the one which gives it its essential character; this may be done by determining whether that product would retain its characteristic properties if one or other of its constituents were removed. As stated in point VIII of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the HS, which supplements rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN, the factor which determines the essential character of the goods may, depending on the type of goods, be determined for example by the nature of the constituent material or components, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or the role of the constituent material in relation to the use of that good (see judgment of 3 June 2021, BalevBio, C‑76/20, EU:C:2021:441, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).

63      In the present case, in the first place, it is apparent from the expert opinion that melamine resin is predominate in terms of quantity in the product in question (see paragraph 35 above).

64      That said, the fact that one material is present in a larger proportion than another is only one of several criteria to be taken into account when determining which material gives the product concerned its essential character (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 May 2016, Toorank Productions, C‑532/14 and C‑533/14, EU:C:2016:337, paragraph 57, and of 3 June 2021, BalevBio, C‑76/20, EU:C:2021:441, paragraph 66).

65      In the second place, the referring court noted that it was apparent from the expert opinion that the product in question consisted of hard and brittle sheets. That hardness is, generally, a characteristic of plastic, and not of paper, as is apparent from point (d) of the first subparagraph of the paragraph relating to combinations of plastics and materials other than textiles, of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, referred to in paragraph 51 above. Furthermore, the fact that the product is brittle supports the fact that it is a rigid product and not a flexible material, such as paper.

66      In the third place, it is apparent from the order for reference that the product in question is intended to be used as a laminated coating resistant to water and heat, for particle boards (see paragraphs 39 and 41 above). It is also apparent from the file before the General Court that those boards are mainly intended for the manufacture of furniture.

67      The melamine resin that the product in question contains appears to be of overriding importance for the use referred to in paragraph 66 above. It is apparent from the file before the Court that that resin gives the product in question its impermeability and its resistance to heat and radiation.

68      By contrast, the characteristics which, according to the observations of ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’, are given to the product in question by the paper, namely its colour and aesthetic appearance, appear to be of secondary importance in view of the use of the product in question, which it is, however, for the referring court to determine.

69      It follows from the foregoing that plastics are capable of giving the product in question its essential character.

70      In those circumstances, subject to investigations to be carried out by the referring court, the product in question must be classified under heading 3921.

71      That is all the more so as it follows from points (b) and (d) of the first subparagraph of the paragraph relating to combinations of plastics and materials other than textiles, of the Explanatory Notes to the HS relating to Chapter 39, that products can only be classified in Chapter 48 if they retain their essential character of paper (see paragraphs 50 and 51 above). In the present case, having regard to its hardness, fragility and resistance to water, heat and radiation, the product in question appears to have lost the essential character of paper, which it is, however, for the referring court to ascertain.

72      Therefore, a product such as the product in question is not capable of falling under heading 4811 of the CN.

73      That conclusion is not called into question by note 2(g) to Chapter 48 of the CN, relied on by ‘Kronospan Bulgaria’.

74      Admittedly, pursuant to note 2(g) to Chapter 48 of the CN, that chapter does not cover ‘paper-reinforced stratified sheeting of plastics, or one layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics, the latter constituting more than half the total thickness, or articles of such materials, other than [wall coverings] of heading 4814 (Chapter 39)’.

75      However, it is common ground, first, that the product in question is not a paper-reinforced stratified sheeting of plastics, or one layer of paper or paperboard. It follows, second, from the information provided by the referring court that nor can it be classified as a product consisting of a layer of paper or paperboard coated or covered with a layer of plastics, within the meaning of note 2(g) to Chapter 48 of the CN. That product is characterised by a more complex composition, given that it consists of a layer of paper impregnated with plastics and is covered with plastics on both sides. It therefore contains a layer of impregnated paper and two layers of plastics.

76      In those circumstances, where the paper layer also contains plastics, that composite structure does not correspond to the hypotheses referred to in note 2(g) to Chapter 48 of the CN. It follows that that note is not decisive for the classification of the product in question.

77      Lastly, the conclusion in paragraph 70 above is supported by the English-language version of WCO Classification Opinion No 3921.90/2 of 1986, attached as Annex A.1 to the Commission’s observations, according to which ‘sheets, consisting of paper heavily impregnated with melamine resin, which fracture on folding due to their brittle nature and which have lost the essential character of paper, used in the manufacture of laminates’, must be classified under HS subheading 3921 90.

78      In that regard, it should be observed that, although classification opinions issued by the WCO do not bind the contracting parties, they do have a bearing on interpretation of the scope of the various headings of the CN (see, to that effect, order of 19 January 2005, SmithKline Beecham, C‑206/03, EU:C:2005:31, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

79      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that the CN must be interpreted as meaning that a composite good consisting of a layer of decorative paper impregnated with thermosetting resins and two surface layers of pure resin which is not fully cured, used for coating boards in multi-layer and short-cycle hot presses, falls under heading 3921 of that nomenclature, provided that plastics give that product its essential character.

 Costs

80      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1998 of 20 September 2022,

must be interpreted as meaning that a composite good consisting of a layer of decorative paper impregnated with thermosetting resins and two surface layers of pure resin which is not fully cured, used for coating boards in multi-layer and short-cycle hot presses, falls under heading 3921 of that nomenclature, provided that plastics give that product its essential character.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 June 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Bulgarian.