Case C‑134/13

Raytek GmbH

and

Fluke Europe BV

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Infrared thermal imagers’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 February 2015

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Infrared thermal imagers — Classification by Regulation No 314/2011 in subheading 9025 19 20 of the Combined Nomenclature — Alteration of the subject-matter of the tariff headings — None — Validity

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 314/2011)

With respect to the application of the Combined Nomenclature forming Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010, the Council has conferred upon the Commission broad discretion to define the subject-matter of the tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, that power does not authorise it to alter the subject-matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the Harmonised System established by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System whose scope the European Union has undertaken not to modify.

With respect to whether the Commission, in classifying goods such as those described in column 1 of the annex to Regulation No 314/2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature under heading 9025 19 of the Combined Nomenclature instead of under heading 9027 50, has altered the subject-matter of those two tariff headings, it is apparent from the description given in that column that the objective characteristics and properties of the apparatuses described in the annex to that regulation do not permit their classification under subheading 9027 50 00 of the nomenclature, their most specific property already covered by heading 9025 thereof. It follows that, in classifying the apparatuses described in the annex to Regulation No 314/2011 under subheading 9025 19 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, the Commission has not altered the subject-matter of tariff headings 9025 19 and 9027 50. Accordingly, the review of that regulation does not lead to the finding that it is invalid.

(see paras 29, 30, 35, 37)

Case C‑134/13

Raytek GmbH

and

Fluke Europe BV

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Infrared thermal imagers’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 February 2015

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Infrared thermal imagers — Classification by Regulation No 314/2011 in subheading 9025 19 20 of the Combined Nomenclature — Alteration of the subject-matter of the tariff headings — None — Validity

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 314/2011)

With respect to the application of the Combined Nomenclature forming Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 861/2010, the Council has conferred upon the Commission broad discretion to define the subject-matter of the tariff headings falling to be considered for the classification of particular goods. However, that power does not authorise it to alter the subject-matter of the tariff headings which have been defined on the basis of the Harmonised System established by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System whose scope the European Union has undertaken not to modify.

With respect to whether the Commission, in classifying goods such as those described in column 1 of the annex to Regulation No 314/2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature under heading 9025 19 of the Combined Nomenclature instead of under heading 9027 50, has altered the subject-matter of those two tariff headings, it is apparent from the description given in that column that the objective characteristics and properties of the apparatuses described in the annex to that regulation do not permit their classification under subheading 9027 50 00 of the nomenclature, their most specific property already covered by heading 9025 thereof. It follows that, in classifying the apparatuses described in the annex to Regulation No 314/2011 under subheading 9025 19 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, the Commission has not altered the subject-matter of tariff headings 9025 19 and 9027 50. Accordingly, the review of that regulation does not lead to the finding that it is invalid.

(see paras 29, 30, 35, 37)