- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 27 January 1994. # Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects v Société Superior France SA and Danzas SA. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Paris - France. # Common Customs Tariff - Chapter 42 - Outer surface of plastic material internally reinforced by textile material - Mere reinforcement. # Case C-150/93.
ECLI:EU:C:1994:31
61993CC0150
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
Important legal notice
61993C0150
European Court reports 1994 Page I-01161
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Mr President, Members of the Court, 1. This case concerns the classification for customs purposes of travel goods - attaché cases, travel bags and suitcases - in cellular plastic (PVC) reinforced inside with synthetic fabric (viscose polyester, cotton polyester) or natural fabric (cotton).
However, following checks carried out by the customs service, the French authorities reclassified the items in question under CCT subheadings 42.02.22.10, 42.02.12.19 and 42.02.12.11 relating to travel goods with outer surface of plastic sheeting. The national authorities then claimed payment of the higher duty and taxes payable under those subheadings.
It is apparent from the order for reference that the items in question, being travel goods, fall indisputably within Chapter 42.02 of the CCT.
The national court states, however, that the external surface of those items is composed of plastic (PVC) sheeting, internally reinforced with fabric. Since Chapter 42.02 provides for separate subheadings according to whether the external surface of travel goods is in plastic or textile material, the Cour d' Appel, Paris, considers it necessary to determine into which of those two categories of subheadings the items in dispute should fall, since they have a surface of both materials combined.
It follows that the question submitted by the national court must be understood as seeking to ascertain whether, for the purposes of the application of the subheadings in Chapter 42.02 of the CCT, goods such as those described in the order for reference - that is to say, travel goods with outer surface of plastic (PVC) sheeting internally reinforced with fabric - are to be regarded as goods with outer surface of plastic or, on the contrary, of textile material.
6. Support for that argument is also to be found primarily in the Sportex (1) judgment, in which the Court considered, with respect to a product composed of different materials, that the presence of a constituent for the purpose of reinforcement only, even if it forms a high percentage of the product, does not give that product its essential characteristics and cannot therefore have any bearing on its classification for customs purposes.
8. In the light of those observations, I consider that the Court should reply to the national court as follows: For the purposes of the application of the subheadings in Chapter 42.02 of the CCT, goods such as those described in the order for reference - that is to say, travel goods with outer surface of plastic material (PVC) internally reinforced with fabric - are to be regarded as goods with outer surface of plastic and not of textile material.
(*) Original language: Italian.
(1) - Judgment in Case C-253/87 Sportex [1988] ECR 3351.
(2) - See the judgment in Case 234/81 Du Pont de Nemours [1982] ECR 3515, and in Case 237/81 Almadent [1982] ECR 2981.