JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1979 — CASE 160/78 INTERCONTINENTALE FLEISCHHANDELSGESELLSCHAFT v HAUPTZOLLAMT MÜNCHEN-WEST
In Case 160/78 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht München [Finance Court, Munich] (IIIrd Senate) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President of Chamber, P. Pescatore and A. Touffait, Judges, Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the present
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
I — Facts and procedure
II — Written observations
1. Wording of the tariff subheading
2. Interpretation in the light of the Explanatory Notes to the Common Customs Tariff
3. Interpretation having regard to the position and purpose of the tariff sub heading within the structure of the Common Customs Tariff
III — Oral procedure
Decision
Costs
I —. Facts and procedure
1. Tariff heading 16.02 of the Common Customs Tariff includes other prepared or preserved meat or meat offal that is, products other than those mentioned in Chapter 2 and the preceding tariff heading 16.01.
2. The plaintiff in the main action, Intercontinentale Fleischhandelsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, caused to be cleared for free sale on 4 and 5 May 1976 at the Hauptzollamt München-West a total of 82324.5 kilograms of minced meat imported from Romania and composed according to the said declaration and the invoice of pigmeat (10 %) and beef and veal (90 %), in frozen blocks and seasoned. On the basis of the result of the inspection for the purposes of tariff classification the goods were assigned to tariff subheading 16.02 B III (a) 1 (cc) of the 1976 Common Customs Tariff, the rate of levy being DM 133.45 per 100 kilograms and the rate of the monetary compensatory amount being DM 41.24 per 100 kilograms.
3. By order of 11 July 1978 the Finanzgericht München (IIIrd Senate) referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:
II —. Written observations
1. Wording of the tariff subheading
2. Interpretation in the light of the Explanatory Notes to the Common Customs Tariff
3. Interpretation having regard to the position and purpose of the tariff sub heading within the structure of the Common Customs Tariff
4. The historical development of the tariff classification also leads to the conclusion that meat within the meaning of tariff subheadings 16.02 B III (a) 1 to 3 of the 1976 Common Customs Tariff should be understood to mean solely pigmeat.
III —. Oral procedure
1. By order of 11 July 1978, lodged at the Court Registry on 27 July 1978, the Finanzgericht München 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.
2. The question was raised in the context of an action pending between the Hauptzollamt München-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.
3. In order to resolve the question of interpretation the national court decided to refer the following question to the Court of Justice:
4. The 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).
5. The argument put forward by the plaintiff in the main action that the term of any kind used in tariff subheadings 16.02 5 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.
6. It 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.
7. This 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.
8. Contrary 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.
9. The 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.
10. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
11. As 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.
On those grounds, THE COURT (Second Chamber) in answer to the question referred to it by the Finanzgericht München by order of 11 July 1978, hereby rules: