Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 15 October 1992

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1. Numerous amendments have been made to it since then, but none are relevant to the present case.

3 For further consideration of what is to be understood by goods put up in sets within the meaning of general rule A.3, see Case 163/84 Hauptzollamt Hannover v Telefunken [1985] ECR 3299, paragraph 35.

4 The Court has consistently held that those notes constitute a valuable aid in the interpretation of the OCT. Among other recent judgments, see Case 245/87 Blaupunkt-Werke v Oberfinanzdirektion Berlin [1989] ECR 573 (summary publication), Case 164/88 Ministère Public v Rispal and Others [1989] ECR 2041 (summary publication) and Case C-265/89 Vismans Nederland v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1990] ECR I-3411, paragraph 18.

5 See the Explanatory Note for heading 3002, section C.That note is cited in full in the Report of die Judge-Rapporteur.