A — · 13/71 · GlobalLawDB

A —The Henck undertaking recalls the observations which it put forward in Case 12/71 as to the meaning of the concept of ‘kibbled maize grain’, at least in March 1964. The concept of ‘maize groats or meal’ must now be defined on the basis of that concept. For this purpose, the Henck undertaking makes inter alia the following points:(1) The essential characteristic of kibbled grain lies in the fact that this product is obtained by grinding whole unworked grains. In contrast to kibbled maize grain, maize groats or meal consist in floury fragments from the grinding of hulled grains which have been degermed. Thus the production of maize groats or meal presupposes that the maize grains have previously been treated. The fat content and content in crude fibres of maize groats or meal are for that reason very low. The former is normally less than 1.5 % in the dry material and the latter is never more than 1.2 % in the dry material.In support of these arguments, Henck undertaking refers to annexes 3 to 13 of its statement of defence and puts forward offers of proof.(2) Groats differ from meal solely because of their structure. The former consists in roughly-ground fragments of hulled grains which have been degermed: because of this, they cannot contain any floury constituents. A precise criterion for distinguishing between these two types of product did not exist in 1964.(3) The above-mentioned criteria are based on commercial practice. Neither Community law nor the explanatory notes on the German customs tariff offered a legal definition of ‘maize groats’ in March 1964. Even the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature which relate to tariff heading 11.02 merely state as regards the concept of ‘groats’ that the product referred to consists in a granular product which is obtained after the initial milling operation by a sifting process or by a second nulling operation.There was only a precise definition of the concept of ‘maize groats or meal’ in Community law from 1970 under Regulation No 1011/70 of the Commission of 29 May 1970. The Henck undertaking recalls the basic provisions of that regulation which concern the present case and observes that although it is correct that that regulation cannot be taken into consideration for the interpretation of the concept of ‘maize groats’ in March 1964, it reflects the view of commercial circles as it existed even before 1970 and repeats the definition previously accepted in those circles. In the absence of a different legal definition it is quite justified to take account of such an opinion for the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 19/62.On the basis of these observations, the Henck undertaking concludes that the question which has been referred must be answered as follows:‘The expression “maize groats” within the meaning of Article 1 (d) of Regulation No 19/62 of the Council of the EEC in conjunction with the annex to that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it included in March 1964 a product consisting in fragments from the rough grinding of hulled maize grains which have been degermed in so far as the maximum fat content was 1.5 % in the dry material and the maximum crude fibre content was 1 % in the dry material.’