Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 12 October 1989

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ 1984, L 320, p. 1.

3 It should be pointed out that although the Explanatory Notes to the Common Customs Tariffcannot modify the text of the Tariff itself, they nevertheless constitute an important factor in its interpretation enabling the scope of the various tariff headings or subheadings to be defined or clarified; see the judgment of 26 February 1980 in Case 54/79 Hako-Schuh v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost [1980] ECR 311, paragraph 6.

4 Sec the judgment of 17 March 1983 in Case 175/82 Diner v Hauptzollamt Koln-Deutz [1983] ECR 969, paragraph 11.

5 To be precise, the Customs Inspector readied that conclusion by wrongly applying a substantively identical provision in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3678/88 (OJ 1988, L 366, p 53) The Tariefcommissie then cleared up the error by correctly identifying the applicable provision.

6 United Nations Treaty Sertes, Vol 347, p 127 (official texts in English and French)

7 There is, moreover, no dispute that the Community has taken over from the Member States the commitments arising from the convention in question and is bound by those commitments; sec the judgment of 19 November 1975 in Case 38/75 Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1975] ECR 1439, p. ragraphs 21 to 23. In that regard it should be pointed our that in Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987, L 198, p. 1), the Council approved, on behalf of the Community, the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which was adopted in Brussels on 14 June 1983 and which was intended to replace the 1950 Brussels Convention as the international basis for customs tariffs and statistical nomenclatures.

8 See the preamble to the Convention.

9 Established by the Convention establishing the Customs Cooperation Council adopted in Brussels on 15 December 1950 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 157, p. 129).

10 See paragraph 10 of the judgment in Dinter, cited above.

11 See the judgment of 30 September 1982 in Case 317/81 Howe & Bainbridge BV v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main [1982] ECR 3257, paragraphs 14, 17, 19 and 20.