Opinion of Mr Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. This case concerns the classification for customs purposes of travel goods — attaché cases, travel bags and suitcases — in cellular plastic (PVC) reinforced inside with synthetic fabric (viscose polyester, cotton polyester) or natural fabric (cotton).

2. When the items in question were imported, they were classified on the basis of declarations made by the customs agent (Danzas) on behalf of the importer (Superior SA France) under subheadings 42.02.12.91, 42.02.12.99 and 42.02.92.91 of the Common Customs Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the CCT) relating to travel goods with outer surface of textile material.

3. In the action brought by the companies concerned against the reclassification of the goods, the Cour d'Appel, Paris, stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of the provisions of the combined nomenclature.

4. In that connection, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with General Rule 2(b) on the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, any reference in a heading to a material shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material with other materials. With reference to mixtures or composite goods consisting of different materials, Rule 3(b) provides that these are to be classified, where possible, as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character.

5. In accordance with those criteria, it is necessary to determine whether in this case it is the plastic or the textile material that gives travel goods their essential character. In that regard, the argument put forward by both the Commission and the French Government, and which I believe should be fully endorsed, is that the textile material does not give the goods in question their essential character since it is present merely in order to reinforce the plastic sheeting used to form the outer surface.

6. Support for that argument is also to be found primarily in the Sportex judgment, in which the Court considered, with respect to a product composed of different materials, that the presence of a constituent for the purpose of reinforcement only, even if it forms a high percentage of the product, does not give that product its essential characteristics and cannot therefore have any bearing on its classification for customs purposes.

7. Furthermore, that argument is also supported by certain factors which may be deduced from the Explanatory Notes of the Customs Cooperation Council, and from the Explanatory Notes to the CCT, those documents constituting, as is well known, an aid to interpreting the headings of the CCT.

8. In the light of those observations, I consider that the Court should reply to the national court as follows:

1 Original language: Italian.

2 Judgment in Case C-253/87 Sportex [1988] ECR 3351.

3 See the judgment in Case 234/81 Du Pout de Nemours [1982] ECR 3515, and in Case 237/81 Almadent [1982] ECR 2981.