1.According to the plaintiff in the main proceedings, General Rule 2 for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff attributes decisive importance to the concept of “article”. It points out that the rule deals with “articles” which must be mentioned, incomplete or unfinished, in a specific heading of the tariff provided that they have “as imported, ... the essential character of the complete or finished aniele” (first sentence of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tarif0- In that context, the concept of article is therefore universal, and is not subject to any limitation, in any form whatever, and all “blanks” of articles are covered. It points out that that fact is also properly stressed in the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature (hereinafter referred to as “the Explanatory Notes”) in respect of General Rule 2 (a). Any limitation of that provision to specific goods is expressly avoided and therefore all the articles in Sections 1 to XXI are covered by the concept of “article” in the first sentence in General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff. That universal definition of “article” laid down in the first sentence of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff thus also covers liquids. That wide view of the concept of aniele is supported by the opinion of the Commission and of the Advocate General in Case 165/78 IMCO-Michaelis (judgment of the Court ot Justice of 29 May 1979, [1979] ECR 1837). In that regard, the plaintiff in the main proceedings observes thai there has been support for the view that prior to the introduction of General Rule 2 (a) wich was adopted on 1 January 1972. a provision of the same kind existed only with respect to the articles in Sections XVI and XVII ot the Common Customs Tariff and that the latter rule was extended, by the adoption of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, to all the goods in that tariff.The plaintiff in the main proceedings admits that the application of that general rule to liquids presupposes in addition the existence of the other characteristics referred to in the first sentence of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff. It thus points out that the article (in this case the liquid) must be “incomplete or unfinished”, such being the case if it has “as imported, ... the essential character of the complete or finished article”. It adds in that respect that the article may also be “unassembled or disassembled” [“zerlegt”], in accordance with the second sentence of General Rule 2 (a).According to the plaintiff in the main proceedings, the interpretation of the expression “unassembled or disassembled” [“zerlegt”] must take into account the fact that that concept is very wide and thai, according to linguistic usage, it may also extend to the separation, brought about bv physical means, of the components of a liquid. That fact is also explained in paragraph X of of the Explanatory Notes (p.IÍR 2,). It states that the wording of the Explanatory Notes makes clear that “any goods consisting of several materials or substances” may also fall within the scope of General Rule 2 (a). It adds that proof is thereby provided that, in the Explanatory Notes, liquids are also considered as anieles within the meaning of General Rule 2 (a), since n is only on the basis of that rule thai classification of an article made up of more ihan one component in a single specific heading of the tariff is possible. The fact that ameles in a “mixed or composite state” are treated in the same way in the Explanatory Notes also shows thai the definition or “article” laid donn in General Rule 2 (a) is universal and therefore, specificala, that liquids too may be “imported unassembled or disassembled” [“zerlegt”].In that regard, the plaintiff in the main proceedings sutes that, in its judgment of 29 May 1979 in Case 165/78, the Court of Justice has already held that General Rule 2 (a) covers articles not yet assembled as well as articles which have been disassembled. Thus, the answer to the question now submitted to the Court of Justice cannot be dependent on the fact that fruit juice is a natural product and prima facie constitutes a complete article. Consequently, the fact that no assembly of that natural product took place before it was separated into its component parts is, on the basis of a decided case, namely Case 165/78, without importance in the context of General Rule 2 (a).According to the plaintiff in the main proceedings, the meaning and purpose of General Rule 2 (a) show that the particular means of transport used for the importation of goods is a matter to which no importance must be attached as regards customs clearance. It points out that the second sentence of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff takes account of that general concept of customs law in so far as goods “imported unassembled or disassembled” must, taken as a whole, be accorded the same tariff classification as the various separate parts, that is to say the same tariff classification as goods which are not unassembled or disassembled when imported. In consequence, that general tariff-classification rule disregards the various means of transport used for importation of goods and, according to paragraph V of the Explanatory Notes on Rule 2 (a), articles are to be classified in the same heading when they are imported unassembled or disassembled solely for reasons connected with packaging, handling or transpon.The plaintiff in the main proceedings maintains that that view, namely that ameles constituting a single entity must be classified in the same heading upon imponation, regardless of differing means of transpon and even where they are imponed “unassembled or disassembled”, applies as a matter ofprinciple to all anieles which, for purely technical reasons, it is quite possible to import “unassembled or disassembled”. As regards fruit juice, it is appropriate to mention that the importation of that product is not technically possible, in usual commercial quantities, without “dissassembly”. According to the plaintiff in the main proceedings, the volume necessarily involved in transport and the costs of such transport would inevitably be so considerable, in the case of unprocessed fruit juice, that importation of it on that basis would be economically senseless. It points out that the importation of fruit juice is not possible unless the juice obtained in the first place by pressing the fruit is concentrated; then, to avoid losses of aroma, the concentrated juice and the flavour concentrate must be separated. It sutes that the fruit concentrate thus obtained (separated into concentrated juice and flavour concentrate) is then usually dealt in as an article constituting a single entity — which in any case is apparent from the commercial invoices produced, on which the price for the concentrated juice and the flavour concentrate is the same, and the article is also imported as a single entity, being thereafter restored, for use, to its original sute, namely fruit juice concentrate, by the mixing of the concentrated |uice and the flavour concentrate.According to the plaintiff, it is clear from the foregoing mai by virtue of the rule of interpretation adopted on 1 January 1972. embodied in the second sentence of General Rule 2 (a) for the Interpretation of me Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, inn semence must be construed as meaning thai it is appropriate to regard, on the one hand, mahaleb cherry juine or black currant or disassembled since the fruit-juicet concentrates and favoury concentrates which are deat juicet or black currantsuice as articles imported unassembled or disassembled since the fruit-juicet concentrates and fravour concentrates which are deati in at the sarte price are re-mixed immediately before use or bottling.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.