Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2007/211/46

    Case C-312/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance, Paris, lodged on 6 July 2007 — JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

    SL C 211, 8.9.2007, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.9.2007   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 211/25

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance, Paris, lodged on 6 July 2007 — JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

    (Case C-312/07)

    (2007/C 211/46)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Tribunal d'instance de Paris

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: JVC France SAS

    Defendant: Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must a camcorder, which when imported is unable to record external video signals, be classified under subheading 8525 40 99, if its video interface can subsequently be reconfigured as a video input by using software or an enabler (widget) equipped with electronic circuitry which enables it to record an external video sound signal, even though the manufacturer and the seller have not mentioned this possibility and do not endorse it?

    2.

    If so, to the extent that the subsequent amendments of the explanatory notes entail a change in Community practice with regard to the classification of camcorders and an exception to the principle that goods must be classified according to their actual characteristics at the time of customs clearance, was the European Commission entitled to make this change by amending the explanatory notes, and hence with retrospective effect, rather than by adopting a classification regulation that was applicable only in the future?
    Top