21.1.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/25

(Case C-677/18)

(2019/C 25/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amoena Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

1.Was the CCC (1) and/or the European Commission· manifestly wrong to classify the MBs (2):

a)under Chapter 62 of the Combined Nomenclature (3) of the European Union with tariff heading 6212, which specifically includes ‘Brassieres’, and CN code 6212 10 90;

instead of

b)Chapter 90 with tariff heading 9021 and CN Code 9021 10 10 as accessories to artificial parts of the body within the meaning of Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 of the CN?

2.Does the CIR (4) illegitimately narrow the scope of the classification for accessories for artificial body parts under tariff heading 9021 and Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 of the CN, thereby making it ultra vires the European Commission's powers?

3.Does the CIR constitute a breach of the principal of sincere co-operation set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in circumstances where:

a)the European Commission must respect the decisions of national courts, but must also promote the uniform (and correct) application of the Customs Code and CN;

b)the United Kingdom Supreme Court came to the unanimous conclusion that the MBs are properly to be classified under Chapter 90 of the CN with tariff heading 9021; and

c)the Supreme Court's decision was put before the European Commission and submitted by it to all EU Member States along with a summary of the Supreme Court's reasoning?

(1) Customs Code Committee (CCC).

(2) Mastectomy bras (MBs).

(3) CN.

(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1167 of 26 June 2017 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined NomenclatureCommission Implementing Regulation (OJ 2017, L 170, p. 50) (CIR).