EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris — France) — Kip Europe SA, Kip (UK) Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH (C-362/07), Hewlett Packard International SARL (C-363/07) v Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Multi-function apparatus — Apparatus combining the functions of laser printer and a digital electronic scanner module, with a copier function — Heading 8471 — Heading 9009)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CA0362

62007CA0362

January 1, 2007
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/6

(Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Multi-function apparatus - Apparatus combining the functions of laser printer and a digital electronic scanner module, with a copier function - Heading 8471 - Heading 9009)

(2009/C 32/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kip Europe SA, Kip (UK) Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH (C-362/07), Hewlett Packard International SARL (C-363/07)

Defendant: Administration des douanes — Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (France) — Interpretation of 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 applicable at the material time, and validity of Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 70, p. 9) — Multifunctional apparatus comprising a laser printer module, a scanner module and a computer module — Whether classification should be under tariff heading 8471 60 40 (Automatic data-processing machines) on the basis of General Rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the CN (printing function giving the apparatus its ‘essential character’) or under heading 9009 12 00 (photocopying apparatus) pursuant to Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the CN (apparatus autonomously fulfilling a specific function — copying — other than data-processing)

Operative part of the judgment

1.Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature constituting 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that only machines incorporating an automatic data-processing machine or working in conjunction with such a machine, whose function is not data processing, perform ‘a specific function other than data processing’;

2.If the copying function performed by the machines at issue in the main proceedings is secondary in relation to the printing and electronic scanning functions, they must be considered units of automatic data-processing machines within the meaning of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, which units, by application of Note 5(C) to that chapter, if they are presented in isolation, fall within heading 8471. In such a case, the relevant subheading must be determined in accordance with Note 3 to Section XVI of the said nomenclature. However, if the importance of that copying function is equivalent to that of the other two functions, those machines must be classified, by application of General Rule 3(b) of the General rules for the interpretation of that nomenclature, under the heading corresponding to the module which gives those machines their essential character. If such identification proved impossible, they must be classified under heading 9009 in accordance with General Rule 3(c);

3.Examination of the fifth questions referred has not raised any factor liable to affect the validity of point 4 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 400/2006 of 8 March 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia