Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - TARIFF HEADINGS - MEAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 - CONCEPT
Summary
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN HEADING 1602 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , IN THE VERSION BROUGHT INTO FORCE BY REGULATION NO 3000/75 OF THE COUNCIL - IN PARTICULAR IN SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B I ( A ) AND ( B ), 16.02 B III ( A ) AND 16.02 B III ( B ) 1 - THAT WHENEVER THE AUTHORS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF INTENDED TO REFER TO MEAT OF A PARTICULAR KIND THEY DID SO EXPRESSLY .
CONSEQUENTLY THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TERM ' ' OF ANY KIND ' ' USED IN TARIFF SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 RELATES ONLY TO OFFAL SO THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE SAID SUBHEADING IS SOLELY THAT OF MEAT OF ' ' DOMESTIC SWINE ' ' CANNOT BE UPHELD .
THE TERM ' ' MEAT ' ' IN SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN THE VERSION BROUGHT INTO FORCE BY REGULATION NO 3000/75 RELATES THEREFORE TO MEAT OF ALL KINDS , INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR BEEF AND VEAL .
Parties
IN CASE 160/78
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE FINANZGERICHT MUNCHEN ( FINANCE COURT , MUNICH ) ( IIIRD SENATE ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
INTERCONTINENTALE FLEISCHHANDELSGESELLSCHAFT MBH & CO . KG , GROSSGERAU ,
AND
HAUPTZOLLAMT MUNCHEN-WEST ( PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE , MUNICH-WEST )
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) IN THE VERSION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF RESULTING FROM REGULATION NO 3000/75 OF THE COUNCIL OF 17 NOVEMBER 1975 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 304 , P . 1 ),
Grounds
1BY ORDER OF 11 JULY 1978 , LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 27 JULY 1978 , THE FINANZGERICHT MUNCHEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN THE VERSION IN FORCE IN 1976 .
2THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION PENDING BETWEEN THE HAUPTZOLLAMT MUNCHEN-WEST ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE HAUPTZOLLAMT ' ' ), THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION , AND THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IN MAY 1976 IMPORTED FROM ROMANIA A QUANTITY OF MINCED MEAT , 10% OF WHICH WAS PIGMEAT AND 90% OF WHICH WAS BEEF OR VEAL . THE PRODUCT WAS CLASSIFIED BY THE HAUPTZOLLAMT UNDER TARIFF SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 ( CC ) OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF . THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION HOWEVER CHALLENGED THAT CLASSIFICATION DECISION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE TERM ' ' MEAT ' ' CONTAINED IN THE DEFINITION OF SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) REFERRED SOLELY TO PIGMEAT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY MIXTURES CONTAINING LESS THAN 40% BY WEIGHT OF PIGMEAT - WHICH IS THE CASE AS REGARDS THE MIXTURES IMPORTED IN THIS INSTANCE - SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) 3 . THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF WITH THE HAUPTZOLLAMT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND THE PLAINTIFF THEREFORE BROUGHT AN ACTION BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT .
3IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION THE NATIONAL COURT DECIDED TO REFER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE :
' ' IS THE TERM ' MEAT ' IN TARIFF SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 OF THE 1976 COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING ONLY PIGMEAT OR ALSO AS MEANING MEAT OTHER THAN PIGMEAT ( FOR EXAMPLE BEEF AND VEAL)?
' '
4THE TARIFF HEADING IN QUESTION , NO 16.02 , WHICH IS HEADED ' ' OTHER PREPARED OR PRESERVED MEAT OR MEAT OFFAL ' ' CONTAINS VARIOUS SUBHEADINGS INCLUDING SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) COVERING ' ' OTHER ( PREPARED MEATS ) . . . CONTAINING MEAT OR OFFAL OF DOMESTIC SWINE . . . ' ' . IN ITS TURN THAT SUBHEADING IS DIVIDED INTO THREE SUBHEADINGS DEPENDING ON THE PERCENTAGE OF ' ' MEAT OR OFFAL , OF ANY KIND , INCLUDING FATS OF ANY KIND OR ORIGIN ' ' CONTAINED IN THE PREPARED OR PRESERVED MEAT IN QUESTION NAMELY 80% OR MORE ( 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 ); 40% OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 80% ( 16.02 B III ( A ) 2 ); LESS THAN 40% ( 16.02 B III ( A ) 3 ).
5THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION THAT THE TERM ' ' OF ANY KIND ' ' USED IN TARIFF SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 RELATES ONLY TO OFFAL SO THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE SAID SUBHEADING IS SOLELY THAT OF MEAT OF ' ' DOMESTIC SWINE ' ' CANNOT BE UPHELD .
6IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THAT ARGUMENT WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT , IN THE DEFINITION OF TARIFF HEADING NO 16.02 , WHENEVER THE AUTHORS OF THE TARIFF INTENDED TO REFER TO MEAT OF A PARTICULAR KIND THEY DID SO EXPRESSLY . SO FOR EXAMPLE IN TARIFF SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B I ( A ) AND ( B ), WHERE THE CLASSIFICATION ALSO DEPENDS ON THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT CONTAINED IN THE PREPARED MEAT IN QUESTION , IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IS EXCLUSIVELY THAT OF ' ' POULTRY-MEAT ' ' . SIMILARLY THE KIND OF MEAT IN QUESTION IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) ( MEAT OR OFFAL OF DOMESTIC SWINE ) AND IN SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( B ) 1 ( BOVINE MEAT OR OFFAL ). IF THE AUTHORS OF THE TARIFF HAD ACTUALLY INTENDED TO MAKE CLASSIFICATION WITHIN SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ) CONDITIONAL MERELY ON THE PERCENTAGE OF PIGMEAT CONTAINED IN THE PREPARED MEAT THEIR DRAFTING PRACTICE SHOWS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE USED OTHER WORDING AND WOULD HAVE INSERTED THE WORDS ' ' OF DOMESTIC SWINE ' ' AFTER THE WORD ' ' MEAT ' ' .
7THIS CONCLUSION IS STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE WORDS ' ' OF MEAT OR OFFAL ' ' ARE FOLLOWED BY THE EXPRESSION ' ' OF ANY KIND ' ' THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE SUBHEADING RELATES TO ALL KINDS OF MEAT AND OFFAL . THE FACT THAT IN ALL THE OFFICIAL VERSIONS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE GERMAN AND DANISH VERSIONS , THE EXPRESSION ' ' OF ANY KIND ' ' IS SEPARATED BY A COMMA FROM THE WORDS ' ' MEAT OR OFFAL ' ' , TO WHICH IT REFERS , IN FACT CONFIRMS THAT THE LATTER EXPRESSION RELATES TO THE MEAT AS WELL AS TO THE OFFAL .
8CONTRARY TO THE ALLEGATION OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION CONTAIN NOTHING TO RULE OUT THE INTERPRETATION SET OUT ABOVE . AS REGARDS THE TARIFF HEADING IN QUESTION THE EXPLANATORY NOTES GIVE ONLY DETAILS REGARDING THE WAY IN WHICH THE PERCENTAGE OF MEAT OR OFFAL CONTAINED IN THE PREPARED MEAT IS TO BE CALCULATED . IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BASE ON THAT ANY ARGUMENT SUPPORTING A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ' ' MEAT ' ' CONTAINED IN TARIFF SUBHEADING 16.02 B III ( A ), WHICH WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE WORDING AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT SUBHEADING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
9THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION RAISED SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT THE TERM ' ' MEAT ' ' IN SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN FORCE IN 1976 RELATES TO MEAT OF ALL KINDS , INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR BEEF AND VEAL .
Decision on costs
COSTS
10THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
11AS THE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT MUNCHEN BY ORDER OF 11 JULY 1978 , HEREBY RULES :
THE TERM ' ' MEAT ' ' IN SUBHEADINGS 16.02 B III ( A ) 1 , 2 AND 3 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN FORCE IN 1976 RELATES TO MEAT OF ALL KINDS , INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR BEEF AND VEAL .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy