“4. Where a machine (including a combination of machines) consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function. 5. For the purposes of these notes, the expression “machine” means any machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85.”
“This heading includes: (1) Radio navigational aid equipment (e.g. radio beacons and radio buoys, with fixed or rotating aerials; receivers, including radio compasses equipped with multiple aerials or with a directional frame aerial). It also includes global positioning system receivers.”
“Titles of sections, chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions.”
“When by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows: (a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them givens a more complete or precise description of the goods; (b) mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character in so far as this criterion is applicable; (c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.”
“For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this rule, the relative Section and Chapter Notes also apply, unless the context requires otherwise.”
“shows that consumers who choose that product are seeking, primarily, not a recording function, but rather a function of decoding television signals, although their choice may be influenced by the fact that it has a recording function or the number of hours of programming that can be recorded.”
“the CN must be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which has a translation or dictionary function must, where that function is not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under [the heading other electrical apparatus] rather than under [the heading an electrical machine with translation or dictionary functions].”
“unhesitatingly and automatically be adopted in the case of a similar product. On the contrary, as always, where reasoning by analogy is employed, great care is called for.”
" It is apparent from case law, firstly, that a classification regulation, such as [the one on question], is adopted by the Commission when the classification in the CN of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute and, secondly, such a regulation is of general application in so far as it does not apply to an individual trader but, in general, to products identical to the one thus classified"
“The mere fact that both the monitors at issue in the main proceedings and the goods covered by [the relevant regulation] have a DVI socket and that, for that reason, they are all capable of displaying signals coming from an automatic data-processing machine and from other sources, leaving aside any assessment of their objective characteristics and their performance of their various functions, cannot be sufficient, in the light of the differences noted…for that regulation to apply to those monitors by analogy”
“If that objective characteristic can be established at the time of the customs clearance, the fact that it may also be possible to envisage another use for the garments will not preclude them from being classified for legal purposes as pyjamas. It follows that, for a garment to be classified as pyjamas for customs purposes, it does not have to be solely or exclusively meant to be worn in bed. It suffices if that is the main use for which it is intended.”
“It is also clear from the Sony case that customer perception is relevant. The way people use and view the nano is relevant provided it is reflected in the physical characteristics of the device. The consumer’s view as contained in the survey and the numerous reviews to which we have been referred in the main (with a few exceptions) state that the screen and storage are too small for the product to be used routinely as a video device and the best use of the product is as an audio device. We do not accept that, because the survey was not carried out at point of entry, this would make any difference to the conclusions contained therein.”
“ That conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that the paperweights in question are produced by hand in limited editions by well-known artists and are collected by collectors and displayed in museums without ever being used as paperweights. Just as an artistic value which an article may have is not a matter for assessment by the customs authorities, the method employed for producing the article and the actual use for which that article is intended cannot be adopted by those authorities as criteria for tariff classification, since they are factors which are not apparent from the external characteristics of the goods and cannot therefore be easily appraised by the customs authorities. For the same reasons, the price of the article in question is not an appropriate criterion for customs classification.”
“72. In my view, there is no doubt that the technical characteristics of the product constitute the fundamental criterion to be taken into account in that connection. In the case of the monitors at issue, it will plainly be characteristics like the resolution, the 40 screen aspect ratio (the width of the screen in relation to its height), the available connectors, the possibility of adjusting the height and screen tilt angle, the presence of certain specific ergonomic features designed to facilitate close ‘desktop’ use and so forth, which the national court will have to analyse in order to determine whether or not the product is normally used in connection with an automatic data-processing system. 73. The possibility of taking account of the product’s intended commercial use, in other words its ‘target’ use, in order to determine its normal use, seems to me to be more problematical. In my view, that option should be excluded. 74. It is in fact clear that if significance is attached to elements such as the product’s declared use, as indicated on its packaging or in advertising material, there is an increased risk of abuse. In a variety of fields, instances of products which are surreptitiously presented as being intended for uses other than their real use, in order, for example, to circumvent sales bans or rule out producer liability, are in fact anything but infrequent, even though the relevant public is actually perfectly well aware of the real intended use of the products in question. 75. The position set out above seems to me, moreover, to be consistent with the case-law of the Court which, while in principle accepting the possibility of taking a product’s intended use into account in order to determine its customs classification, has, nevertheless, stressed that that intended use must be based on specific and objective criteria.”
“…Upper Tribunal were not excluding information from being relevant by reason only that it might be described in loose general terms as “marketing material” but were intending to exclude specifically, that kind of marketing material that does not deal with objective characteristics and properties. So, for example, suppose that an advertising brochure contained a detailed circuit diagram of an electronic device….the circuit diagram would clearly set out the objective characteristics of the device in question and so would be relevant to the question of classification. The appellant acknowledges that these cases mean that reference to marketing material in the context of targeted use is not permitted. However, the appellant asserts that the relevant materials in this case are being relied on as evidence of the intended use, as objectively determined, which is permitted.”
“In accordance with that general rule of interpretation, it is necessary, in carrying out the tariff classification of a product, to identify, from among the materials of which it is composed, the one which gives it its essential character. This may be done by determining whether the Product would retain its characteristics properties if one or other of its constituents were removed from it.”