C-377/92 · GlobalLawDB

Contents

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber)5 October 1993^noteIn Case C-377/92,REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenFelix Koch Offenbach Couleur und Karamel GmbHandOberfinanzdirektion München,THE COURT (First Chamber),composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President of the Chamber, R. Joliét and D. A. O. Edward, Judges,Advocate General: F. G. Jacobs,Registrar: Lynn Hewlett, Administrator,after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:— Felix Koch Offenbach Couleur und Karamel GmbH, by Hinrich Glashoff, Tax Consultant,— the Commission of the European Communities, by Angela Bardenhewer and Blanca Rodríguez Galindo, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,having regard to the Report for the Hearing,after hearing the oral observations of the parties at the hearing on 1 July 1993,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 September 1993,gives the following

Judgment

1By order of 26 August 1992, received at the Court on 12 October 1992 the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1992 L 267, p. 1).

2That question is worded as follows:‘Is the Common Customs Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1990) to be interpreted as meaning that “coconut powder” consisting of a pasteurized, homogenized and subsequently spray-dried mixture of ground and pressed coconut pulp to which maltose and sodium caseinate are added before it is dried in order to obtain the form of a powder, as more particularly described in the grounds of this order, to be classified under subheading No 21069099 as a “food preparation not elsewhere specified or included (other)”?’

3Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts in the main proceedings, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

4For the reasons set out in the Opinion of the Advocate General, delivered on 16 September 1993, the answer to the question put by the national court should be that a substance consisting of a pasteurized, homogenized and subsequently spray-dried mixture of ground and pressed coconu.t pulp to which maltose and sodium caseinate are added before it is dried in order to obtain the form of a powder, and containing a negligible quantity of fibre and at least 5% sucrose, must be classified under subheading 2106 90 99 of the Common Customs Tariff.

Costs

5The costs incurred by the the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since 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.On those grounds,

Operative part

THE COURT (First Chamber),in answer to the question referred to it by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of 26 August 1992, hereby rules: A substance consisting of a pasteurized, homogenized and subsequently spray-dried mixture of ground and pressed coconut pulp to which maltose and sodium caseinate are added before it is dried in order to obtain the form of a powder, and containing a negligible quantity of fibre and at least 5% sucrose, must be classified under subheading 21069099 of the Common Customs Tariff.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 5 October 1993.