Judgment_paragraph 1. · NV Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten (80/72)

1.It must be noted, with regard to the rules of interpretation of the refunds system, that neither Regulation No 120/67 nor Regulation No 360/67 nor the Regulations of the Commission fixing the amounts of the refunds, contains precise criteria with regard to the specification of products falling under tariff headings 11.01 and 23.02 respectively. The distinction on the basis of starch content and of ash content is effective within tariff positions 11.01 and 23.02 respectively; it is of little use as a means of distinguishing flour from bran. For the description and definition of products falling under the different headings for which refunds are available, the said Regulations have recourse to the unmodified nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff. Nor does Regulation No 1138/68, applicable to the last export in dispute, contain any further specific directions for the interpretation of the different headings. Article 1 thereof refers expressly to the products described in Regulation No 1052/68, whose Annex contains a particular nomenclature, accompanied by a note applicable to heading 11.01, indicating the boundary between that heading and tariff heading 23.02.It is not, however, certain that this note can be used as a rule of classification with binding force for the interpretation ^o of the refund nomenclature of Regulation No 1138/68; its aim is plainly to define the nomenclature of the Annex to Regulation No 1052/68 for the calculation and definition of the levies alone, which explains its insertion in Regulation No 1137/68 on levies, and not in 1138/68 on refunds.On the other hand, it must be considered that Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation No 1052/68 refer to the nomenclature appearing in the Annex to this Regulation as regards refunds and that the application of a uniform nomenclature requires a uniform interpretation of the tariff, such that, in the absence of specified exceptions therefrom, the interpretation of the description of products in the Common Customs Tariff, should be the same within the framework of the refunds system as within that of the levies system.On any interpretation, the question whether the note in question has the force of a binding rule of classification may be ignored, as it emerges from the decisions of the Court (Case 30/71, Siemers, judgment of 24 November 1971, Rec. 1971, p. 919 and Case 77/71 Gervais-Danone, judgment of 15 December 1971, Rec. 1971, p. 1127) that it applies only to exports carried out after 29 July 1968 the date when Regulation No 1052/68 came into force, and that Regulations Nos 122/68, 372/68 and 814/68 apply to exports prior to that date. With regard to Regulation No 1138/68 which applied to the last export in question, it adopted, without modifying them, the tariff headings of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff; only the rules of interpretation of this Tariff are therefore of importance.

NV Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten (80/72)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version