(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus)

(Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Subheading CN 0511 91 10 – Subheading CN 0303 22 00 – Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon – Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 – Anti-dumping duties)

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon obtained after filleting of the fish

The Combined Nomenclature to the Common Customs Tariff, which constitutes Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under subheading 0303 22 00 of the Combined Nomenclature if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(see para. 30, operative part)

16 July 2009 (*)

(Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Subheading CN 0511 91 10 – Subheading CN 0303 22 00 – Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon – Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 – Anti-dumping duties)

In Case C‑56/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia), made by decision of 16 January 2008, received at the Court on 13 February 2008, in the proceedings

Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Juhász, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Malenovský, Judges,

Advocate General: V. Trstenjak,

Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–Pärlitigu OÜ, by M. Maksing, advokaat,

–the Estonian Government, by L. Uibo, acting as Agent,

–the Council of the European Union, by T. Tobreluts and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt,

–the Commission of the European Communities, by K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, H. van Vliet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 February 2009,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of subheadings 0511 91 10 and 0303 22 00 of the Combined Nomenclature which constitutes 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 (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1, ‘the CN’), and the validity of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1).

2The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus (‘the PMTK’), the Estonian tax and customs office, and Pärlitigu OÜ (‘Pärlitigu’), a company incorporated under Estonian law, concerning a tax notice issued to the latter.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

4. The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

TARIC code

Whole fish, fresh, chilled or frozen

2,80

0,40

0302 12 00 12

0302 12 00 33

0303 12 00 93

0303 11 00 93

0303 19 00 93

0303 22 00 12

0303 22 00 83

Gutted, head-on, fresh, chilled or frozen

3,11

0,45

0302 12 00 13

0302 12 00 34

0302 12 00 94

0303 11 00 94

0303 19 00 94

0303 22 00 13

0303 22 00 84

Other (including gutted, head-off), fresh, chilled or frozen

3,49

0,50

0302 12 00 15

0302 12 00 36

0302 12 00 96

0303 11 00 18

0303 11 00 96

0303 19 00 18

0303 19 00 96

0303 22 00 15

0303 22 00 86

Whole fish fillets and fillets cut in pieces, weighing more than 300 g per fillet, fresh, chilled or frozen, skin on

5,01

0,73

0304 10 13 13

0304 10 13 94

0304 20 13 13

0304 20 13 94

Whole fish fillets and fillets cut in pieces, weighing more than 300 g per fillet, fresh, chilled or frozen, skin off

6,40

0,93

0304 10 13 14

0304 10 13 95

0304 20 13 14

0304 20 13 95

Other whole fish fillets and fillets cut in pieces, weighing 300 g or less per fillet, fresh, chilled or frozen

7,73

1,12

0304 10 13 15

0304 10 13 96

0304 20 13 15

0304 20 13 96

…’

Council Regulation (EC) No 319/2009 of 16 April 2009, clarifying the scope of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation No 85/2006 (OJ 2009 L 101, p. 1), replaced Article 1(1) of Regulation No 85/2006 with the following text:

‘A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild) salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen, falling within CN codes ex03021200, ex03031100, ex03031900, ex03032200, ex03041013 and ex03042013 (hereinafter farmed salmon) originating in Norway. Salmon backbones, composed of a fishbone partly covered with flesh, being an edible by-product of the fishing industry, and falling within CN codes ex03021200, ex03031100, ex03031900, ex03032200, shall not be covered by the definitive anti-dumping duty provided that the flesh attached to the backbone represents not more than 40% of the salmon backbone.’

Article 2 of Regulation No 319/2009 provides as follows:

‘For goods not covered by Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 as amended by this Regulation, the definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 in its initial version and the provisional anti-dumping duties definitively collected pursuant to Article 2 of that Regulation shall be repaid or remitted.

According to Article 3 thereof, Regulation No 319/2009 is to apply retroactively from 21 January 2006.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

On 19 January 2006, Pärlitigu purchased in Norway, under an invoice from Fossen AS, 13 050 kg of frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, at a price of EEK 6.54 per kg. It can be seen from the order for reference, and, in particular, from the first question referred to the Court, that the products at issue are fit for human consumption and normally marketed as foodstuffs.

On 23 January 2006, Pärlitigu imported those goods into Estonia under customs declaration No I 5446, in which they were designated as fish waste under CN heading 0511 91 10, on which no customs duty is levied. On the same date, the PMTK accepted that declaration and placed the goods in free circulation. At that time, Pärlitigu paid value added tax of EEK 15 370.

On 25 January 2006, Pärlitigu sold the same goods to Alkfish OÜ at a price of EEK 8.47 per kg.

On 23 March 2006, a PMTK official, carrying out an inspection subsequent to importation, took a sample of the goods in question at the warehouse of Alkfish OÜ in order to ascertain whether the CN heading mentioned in the import declaration was correct. The analysis of the sample showed that the goods were fit for human consumption.

18In the light of that conclusion, the PMTK allocated a new CN heading to the goods, namely, 0303 22 00, and classified the goods under TARIC heading 0303 22 00 15. On 30 March 2007, it issued Tax Notice No 12‑5/177, taking account, in particular, the anti-dumping duty laid down in Regulation No 85/2006.

19On 11 April 2007, Pärlitigu challenged that notice before the Tallinna Halduskohus (Tallinn Administrative Court), seeking annulment of the notice and suspension of its operation by way of interim measure.

20In those circumstances, the Tallinna Halduskohus decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘[1.] Must the [CN] be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones (bones with fish meat) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, fit for human consumption and normally marketed as a foodstuff, come under

(a)subheading 0511 91 10, “fish waste”, or

(b)subheading 0303 22 00 15, “Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) – other – other”?

[2.] If the answer to Question 1 is alternative (b), is the table in Article 1(5) of [Regulation No 85/2006] void as contrary to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 [EC] in so far as, according to that table, the minimum import price established for frozen salmon backbones is higher than the minimum import price for whole fish and gutted head-on fish?’

The questions referred to the Court

The first question

21By its first question, the referring court essentially asks whether frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon, obtained after filleting the fish, come under CN subheading 0511 91 10 as fish waste or CN subheading 0303 22 00 as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and, in particular, under TARIC subheading 0303 22 00 15.

22According to Pärlitigu, the CN must be interpreted as meaning that the goods at issue must be classified under CN subheading NC 0511 91 00, entitled ‘fish waste’, since that description corresponds to the nature of the goods and there is no other, more precise, subheading which corresponds to them. The Estonian Government and the Commission of the European Communities consider, on the other hand, that since the goods in question are fit for human consumption, they come under CN subheading 0303 22 00 and, more particularly, under TARIC subheading 0303 22 00 15.

23It should be recalled that, when the Court is requested to give a preliminary ruling on a matter of tariff classification, its task is to provide the national court with guidance on the criteria the implementation of which will enable the latter to classify the products at issue correctly in the CN, rather than to effect that classification itself, a fortiori since the Court does not necessarily have available to it all the information which is essential in that regard. In any event, the national court is in a better position to do so (Joined Cases C‑260/00 to C‑263/00 Lohmann and Medi Bayreuth [2002] ECR I‑10045, paragraph 26, and Case C‑500/04 Proxxon [2006] ECR I‑1545, paragraph 23). However, in order to give the national court a useful answer, the Court may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, in particular, Case C‑49/07 MOTOE [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 30).

24It should also be recalled that it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and in the section or chapter notes (see, in particular, Case C‑396/02 DFDS [2004] ECR I‑8439, paragraph 27; Case C‑495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I‑8151, paragraph 47; and Case C‑183/06 RUMA [2007] ECR I‑1559, paragraph 27).

25In the present case, it must be noted that the goods at issue in the main proceedings are not expressly referred to either in the wording of the CN headings in question or in the section or chapter notes thereto. It is common ground, however, that the goods in question come under Section I of Part Two of the CN entitled ‘Live animals; animal products’. That section is divided into five chapters, among which are Chapter 3, entitled ‘Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates’, and Chapter 5 entitled ‘Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included’. It is clear from the wording of the latter title that Chapter 5 concerns products which correspond to none of the descriptions in the other four chapters of that section. In addition, note 1(a) to Chapter 5 states that the chapter does not cover edible products, other than guts, bladders and stomachs of animals, and animal blood. In that context, the criteria which could justify the possible classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings under a subheading in Chapter 3 of Part Two, Section I, of the CN must be determined.

26It is settled case-law that both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature are important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (Case C‑338/95 Wiener SI [1997] ECR I‑6495, paragraph 11, and Case C‑276/00 Turbon International [2002] ECR I‑1389, paragraph 22).

27In the present case, note 1(c) to Chapter 3 of Part Two, Section I, of the CN states that that chapter does not cover fish unsuitable for human consumption by reason of either their species or their condition. It is therefore clear from the wording of that note that the decisive criterion for determining whether the goods at issue in the main proceedings come under Chapter 3 lies in the fact that they are fit for human consumption. Under those circumstances, the determinant question is whether, at the time that they were cleared through customs, the frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon, obtained after filleting the fish, constituting those goods, were fit for human consumption (see, by analogy, Case C‑395/93 Neckermann Versand [1994] ECR I‑4027, paragraph 8, and Case C‑14/05 Anagram International [2006] ECR I‑6763, paragraph 26), which it is for the national court to ascertain.

28The applicant in the main proceedings claims that the limited value of the goods in question indicates that, even if the product of which it is composed is fit for human consumption under certain conditions, it cannot be regarded as a food product. The structure of Chapter 3 of Part Two, Section I of the CN concerns fish of which parts or the products thereof can still be used as whole fish or the essential parts of fish. Fish backbones do not meet those requirements because they no longer have the essential properties and characteristics which make it possible, on an objective basis and in the light of economic considerations, to classify them under a subheading in Chapter 3.

29However, since, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 24 of the present judgment, the classification of the goods at issue in the main proceedings must be based on the objective characteristics and properties of those goods, having regard to the objective characteristics and properties defined by the wording of the subheadings and the notes to Chapter 3 of Part Two, Section I of the CN, it is obvious that, in regard to those goods, the decisive factor in classifying them lies in the fact that they are fit for human consumption and not in their value or quantity.

30Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that the CN must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under CN heading 0303 22 00 if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

The second question

31By its second question, the national court is asking whether Article 1(5) of Regulation No 85/2006 is void as contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as the minimum import price established for frozen salmon backbones is higher than the minimum import price for whole fish and gutted head-on fish.

32That regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of farmed salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen, originating in Norway in respect of goods coming under TARIC heading 0303 22 00 15, entitled ‘Other (including gutted, head-off), fresh, chilled or frozen’, in which the goods at issue in the main proceedings must be classified in accordance with tax notice No 12‑5/177 issued by PMTK. Article 1(4) of the said regulation provides that the amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty is to be the difference between the minimum import price fixed in paragraph 5 and the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, if the latter is lower than the former. For goods coming under TARIC heading 0303 22 00 15, the table in paragraph 5 fixes a minimum import price on importation of EUR 3.49 per kg, which is indeed higher than the prices fixed for whole fish and gutted head-on fish, which are EUR 2.80 and EUR 3.11 per kg respectively.

33The scope of Regulation No 85/2006 was later clarified by Regulation No 319/2009, which entered into force on 16 April 2009.

34It is clear from the fifth to seventh recitals in that regulation, that, in the light of the second question raised in the present reference for a preliminary ruling, the Commission initiated a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to farmed salmon originating in Norway, limited to the examination of the product scope. It was considered appropriate to examine whether frozen backbones of salmon fall within the definition of the products concerned by Regulation No 85/2006, and in particular those referred to under the heading ‘Other (including gutted, head off), fresh, chilled or frozen’, which correspond, inter alia, to TARIC heading 0303 22 00 15.

35That examination led to the conclusion that salmon backbones and farmed salmon, as defined in Article 1(1) of Regulation No 85/2006, are two different products because they are not interchangeable and do not compete with each other on the Community market. Consequently, Article 1(1) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation No 319/2009, now provides that salmon backbones, composed of a fishbone partly covered with flesh, being an edible by-product of the fishing industry, and falling within CN codes ex0302 12 00, ex0303 11 00, ex0303 19 00, ex0303 22 00, are not covered by the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation No 85/2006 provided that the flesh attached to the backbone represents no more than 40% of the salmon backbone weight.

36In addition, Article 3 of Regulation No 319/2009 provides that the latter is to apply retroactively from 21 January 2006. Consequently, Article 2 of the regulation provides for repayment or remission of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1(1) of Regulation No 85/2006 in its initial version and of the provisional anti-dumping duties definitively levied in respect of goods not covered by Article 1(1) of Regulation No 85/2006, as amended by Regulation No 319/2009.

37It must be said that the retroactive amendment of Regulation No 85/2006 by Regulation No 319/2006 has deprived the Court’s answer to the national court’s second question of any interest for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.

38It is apparent from the order for reference that the national court has evidence, provided by the applicant, which shows that, in the goods at issue in the main proceedings, the flesh attached to the backbone does not exceed 24% of the weight thereof, which is precisely what led that court to raise the question whether the anti-dumping duties applied to those goods under Regulation No 85/2006 complied with the principle of proportionality.

39Having regard to that established fact, it is clear that, by virtue of Regulation No 319/2009, those goods are deemed never to have come within the scope of the antidumping duty introduced by Regulation No 85/2006.

40Under those circumstances, it is not necessary to answer the second question.

Costs

41Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

The Combined Nomenclature, which constitutes 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, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under CN heading 0303 22 00 if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

[Signatures]

* Language of the case: Estonian.