JUDGMENT OF 22. 3. 1984 — CASE 92/83 3M DEUTSCHLAND / OBERFINANZDIREKTION FRANKFURT AM MAIN
In Case 92/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance Court] for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: T. Koopmans, President of Chamber, Lord Mackenzie Stuart and G. Bosco, Judges, Advocate General: CO. Lenz Registrar: P. Heim
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
I — Facts and written procedure
II — Written observations submitted to the Court
III — Oral procedure
Decision
Costs
I —. Facts and written procedure
1. On 10 March 1982, 3M Deutschland GmbH, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, applied to the Oberfinanzdirektion, Frankfurt am Main, for a binding customs tariff notification (verbindliche Zolltarifauskunft) in respect of an article described as a mat for trapping dirt (Schmutzfangmatte). The article is a fabric made of polyvinyl chloride monofil 0.9 mm thick, laid directly from a spinning nozzle in the form of coils and hardened and joined together by heat treatment with a spray (bonded fibre or yarn fabric). The article is imported from its country of origin, the United States of America, in strips 90 cm and 120 cm wide and 610 cm long for use as a floor covering.
2. The plaintiff in the main proceedings then submitted an appeal to the Bundesfinanzhof for reclassification of the goods under heading No 59.03 of the Common Customs Tariff.
3. As is apparent from the statement of grounds of the order making the reference, the national court wonders in the first place whether Note 2 to Chapter 58, being a special note, takes precedence over Note 1 to Chapter 58. If that question is answered in the affirmative, the further question arises whether articles similar to carpets or rugs but intended for use for other purposes within the meaning of Note 2 concern only articles which are not used as carpets or rugs but are intended for other purposes, for example as wall hangings. If that is the case, the note does not cover the articles at issue.
4. Since determination of the case depended upon an interpretation of Community law, the Bundesfinanzhof considered that it was obliged by virtue of the third paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty to request the Court for a preliminary ruling. By order of 21 April 1983, it decided to ask the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
II —. Written observations submitted to the Court
III —. Oral procedure
1. By order of 21 April 1983, which was received at the Court on 24 May 1983, 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.
2. That question was raised in the course of a dispute concerning the tariff classification of a product described as a mat for trapping dirt (Schmutzfangmatte) which, according to the importing firm, is a product made of bonded fibre fabric or similar bonded yarn fabric covered by tariff heading No 59.03, but which the competent customs authorities classified in a binding customs tariff notification under subheading No 58.02 A II (b).
3. Heading No 59.03 of the Common Customs Tariff comprises bonded fibre fabrics, similar bonded yarn fabrics, and articles of such fabrics, whether or not impregnated or coated. Chapter 59, to which that heading belongs, covers wadding and felt, twine, cordage, ropes and cables, special fabrics, impregnated and coated fabrics, and textile articles of a kind suitable for industrial use.
4. Chapter 58 of the Common Customs Tariff encompasses carpets, mats, matting and tapestries, pile and chenille fabrics, narrow fabrics, trimmings, tulle and other net fabrics, lace and embroidery. Heading No 58.01 covers knotted carpets, carpeting and rugs (made up or not) and heading No 58.02 other carpets, carpeting, rugs, mats and matting, and Kelem, Schumacks and Karamanie rugs and the like (made up or not). Subheading 58.02 A is worded as follows :
5. In the question which it puts to the Court the Bundesfinanzhof describes the product at issue as follows: an article consisting of a fabric which is made of PVC monofil 0.9 mm thick, laid direct from a spinning nozzle in the form of coils and hardened and joined together by heat treatment with the aid of a spray. The product is to be imported in strips 90 cm and 120 cm wide and 610 cm long for use as a floor covering (mat for trapping dirt).
6. The national court asks whether such a product falls under heading No 58.02 or heading No 59.03 of the Common Customs Tariff.
7. Note 1 to Chapter 58 states that the chapter is not to be taken to apply to coated or impregnated fabrics, elastic fabrics or elastic trimmings, machinerybelting or other goods falling within Chapter 59.
8. It follows that a product which, by virtue of its composition, might be classified under Chapter 59 does not fall within the scope of Chapter 58 simply because it is used as a floor covering.
9. It is true that, according to Note 2 to Chapter 58, the words carpets and rugs in headings Nos 58.01 and 58.02 are to be taken to extend to similar articles having the characteristics of floor coverings but intended for use for other purposes. That provision, however, as the Commission has rightly pointed out, is intended to define the meaning of carpets and rugs for the purpose of interpreting headings Nos 58.01 and 58.02 and not to create an exception, in the case of carpets and rugs, to the system of clasification laid down in Note 1.
10. A further argument supporting the same conclusion is provided by the second sentence of Note 2, which states that felt carpets fall within Chapter 59. That provision makes it clear that, in classifying a floor covering, it is necessary to have regard to the nature of the product and its method of manufacture rather than to the use to which it may be put.
11. That interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the products which are expressly referred to in Chapter 58 are similar inasmuch as they are manufactured by knotting, weaving, netting or knitting, whereas bonded fabrics are made up of fibres or yarns which are joined together by a chemical process or by heat treatment.
12. It follows from the foregoing that the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of a fabric which is made of polyvinyl chloride monofil 0.9 mm thick, laid direct from a spinning nozzle in the form of coils and hardened and joined together by heat treatment with the aid of a spray, being a bonded fibre fabric or similar bonded yarn fabric, falls under heading No 59.03, even if it is intended for use as a floor covering.
13. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds, THE COURT (First Chamber), in answer to the question referred to it by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 21 April 1983, hereby rules: