Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. I am in a position to give my Opinion forthwith on the customs classification question asked by the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), on which only the Commission has submitted observations to the Court. The divergent view taken by the plaintiff in the main proceedings is apparent from the order making the reference.

2. It seems to me that the Commission's observations on the problem brought before the Court are persuasive. I therefore think that the Chamber should follow them.

3. From the description of the goods given by the Oberfinanzdirektion (Principal Revenue Office) we are dealing with ‘partially-condensed (hardenable) epoxy resin sheeting in which a layer of carbon fibre filaments (42% by weight) and a layer of glass-fibre (22% by weight) are fully embedded.’

4. To classify such goods under Chapter 39 of the Common Customs Tariff would in fact seem to be in accordance with the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature and with a tariff classification decision adopted in 1972 with regard to a wholly similar product. These are factors which, in accordance with settled case-law, constitute important means of interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff (see, most recently, the judgment in Case 42/86)

5. There is thus no doubt that, pursuant to paragraph 32 of the Explanatory Notes to the Common Customs Tariff (issued by the Federal German Finance Ministry), epoxy resins rank among the products mentioned under tariff heading 39.01.

6. It should also be remembered that, under Rule A 2 (b) of the general rules of the Common Customs Tariff, any mention of goods under a specific heading thereof refers to those goods, either in their pure state or mixed or associated with other goods. Moreover, it appears from the Explanatory Notes to the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature that it is appropriate to classify amongst the materials which are expressly mentioned in Note 3 (d) to Chapter 39 of the Common Customs Tariff, also ‘feuilles ... contenant au sein de la matière plastique constitutive un réseau de renforcement en autres matières (fils métalliques, fils textiles, fibres de verre etc.)’.

7. Finally, it is also interesting to note that, under an EEC tariff classification decision of 22 September 1982, epoxy resin sheets with a glass fibre mesh embedded in the plastic for reinforcement (about 60% by weight) are to be classified under tariff subheading 39.01 C VII. This was considered right because such a product, in spite of the high fibre content, which only served the purpose of reinforcement, retains the characteristics of a plastic material.

8. Since, in the present case, the goods which fall to be considered have approximately the same characteristics (the fibre content at 64% by weight is not significantly higher than that of the goods which were the subject of the aforementioned tariff classification decision) and because it must be acknowledged that the fibres do not determine the character of the goods (in fact, tubes and bars can be manufactured from epoxy resin sheeting alone) it seems appropriate to classify them under tariff heading 39.01, that is to say, following its itemization by Council Regulation No 750/87, tariff subheading 39.01 C VII a) 2.

9. The reply to be given to the Bundesfinanzhof should therefore be that on a proper construction of tariff heading 39.01 of the Common Customs Tariff that heading also covers semi-finished products in sheet form intended for the manufacture of tubing, which are composed of epoxy resin (36% by weight) carbon fibres (42% by weight) and glass fibre (22% by weight), if the two last-mentioned components are completely embedded in the epoxy resin mass.

1 Translated from the German.

2 Judgment of 8 December 1987 in Case 42/86 Directeur général äes douanes et droits- indirects, Pans v Artimport SA [1987] ECR 4817.