1 BY AN ORDER OF 14 JUNE 1982 , WHICH WAS REGISTERED AT THE COURT ON 1 JULY 1982 , THE FINANZGERICHT ( FINANCE COURT ) DUSSELDORF REFERRED TWO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HEADING 16.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .
2 THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS CONCERN THE QUESTION WHETHER THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN POULTRYMEAT , DESCRIBED AS ROLLED TURKEY ROAST , WERE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS . THAT WOULD BE THE CASE IF , AS THE RESPONSIBLE CUSTOMS OFFICE CONSIDERED , THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE FELL WITHIN HEADING 02.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( ' ' DEAD POULTRY . . . AND EDIBLE OFFALS THEREOF . . . FRESH , CHILLED OR FROZEN ' ' ). THE IMPORTING COMPANY , WHICH IS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , ARGUED THAT THE TURKEY ROAST IN QUESTION FELL WITHIN HEADING 16.02 ( ' ' OTHER PREPARED OR PRESERVED MEAT OR MEAT OFFAL ' ' ).
3 ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , THE TURKEY-MEAT IN QUESTION WAS , AT THE TIME OF ITS PREPARATION , LIGHTLY SEASONED WITH A MIXTURE OF PEPPER AND SALT AS IT PASSED ON A CONVEYOR BELT . THE ZOLLTECHNISCHE PRUFUNGS- UND LEHRANSTALT ( CUSTOMS LABORATORY AND TRAINING COLLEGE ), COLOGNE , FOUND HOWEVER THAT THE SEASONING WAS PERCEPTIBLE NEITHER ORGANOLEPTICALLY NOR OPTICALLY AND THAT THE PARTICLES OF SEASONING WERE IDENTIFIABLE ONLY MICROSCOPICALLY .
4 THE FINANZGERICHT DUSSELDORF , BEFORE WHICH THE CASE CAME , CONSIDERED THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT ' ' OTHER PREPARED . . . MEAT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF HEADING 16.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF WAS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT AND THEREFORE REFERRED THE TWO FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' 1 . IS HEADING 16.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES MEAT TO WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF PREPARATION NOTIFIED , SALT AND PEPPER HAVE BEEN ADDED BUT IN WHICH THE PRESENCE OF PEPPER MAY ONLY BE IDENTIFIED MICROSCOPICALLY OR MAY MEAT BE REGARDED AS BEING ' OTHER PREPARED . . . MEAT ' ONLY IF THE SEASONING ADDED MAY BE PERCEIVED BY THE SENSE OF TASTE?
IF THE COURT ANSWERS THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE :
2.ACCORDING TO WHICH CRITERIA IS THE EXISTENCE OF THE TASTE TO BE ASCERTAINED?
' '
5 IT APPEARS FROM THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO CHAPTER 16 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF THAT MEAT PREPARED OR PRESERVED OTHERWISE THAN AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 02 FALLS TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER HEADING 16.02 .
6 CHAPTER 02 COMPRISES POULTRYMEAT WHICH HAS UNDERGONE A PRESERVING PROCESS . THUS THAT CHAPTER REFERS TO FROZEN , CHILLED OR SALTED MEAT OR MEAT IN BRINE AND DRIED OR SMOKED MEAT . SEASONING WHICH IS NOT INTENDED AS A PRESERVATIVE OF MEAT DOES NOT APPEAR AMONG THOSE PROCESSES .
7 THE EXPLANATORY NOTES OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL RELATING TO HEADING 16.02 CONFIRM THAT MEAT SEASONED FOR EXAMPLE BY PEPPER AND SALT FALLS WITHIN HEADING 16.02 AND NOT WITHIN CHAPTER 02 .
8 THE COMMISSION CLAIMED IN THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH IT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT ONLY AN ORGANOLEPTICALLY PERCEPTIBLE SEASONING COULD ENABLE MEAT TO WHICH SALT AND PEPPER HAS BEEN ADDED TO BE REGARDED AS ' ' OTHER PREPARED . . . MEAT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF HEADING 16.02 . IN FACT THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEASONING AND TASTE SINCE SEASONING IMPLIES THE ADDITION TO FOODSTUFFS OF SPICES INTENDED TO BRING OUT THEIR TASTE .
9 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . TO HAVE RECOURSE TO A CRITERION AS SUBJECTIVE AS TASTE WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF JEOPARDIZING THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY . THE FACT THAT SEASONING IS INTENDED TO AFFECT THE TASTE OF MEAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE USE , IF NEED BE , OF THE USUAL METHODS OF CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION SUCH AS LABORATORY ANALYSIS .
10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT ' S WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW , IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT THE DECISIVE CRITERION FOR THE CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS UNDER THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST GENERALLY SPEAKING BE SOUGHT IN THE OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES OF THE PRODUCTS AT THE TIME OF THEIR PRESENTATION FOR CUSTOMS CLEARANCE .
11 THEREFORE THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THAT HEADING 16.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES POULTRYMEAT TO WHICH SALT AND PEPPER HAVE BEEN ADDED EVEN IF THE PEPPER MAY ONLY BE DETECTED MICROSCOPICALLY .
12 IN VIEW OF THAT REPLY THE SECOND QUESTION HAS BECOME DEVOID OF PURPOSE .
COSTS
13 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),
IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT DUSSELDORF BY ORDER OF 14 JUNE 1982 , HEREBY RULES :
HEADING 16.02 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES POULTRYMEAT TO WHICH SALT AND PEPPER HAVE BEEN ADDED EVEN IF THE PEPPER CAN BE DETECTED ONLY MICROSCOPICALLY .
