On 25 February, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) published the judgement of the Case T-69/25, ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in relation to certain products.
Firstly, the GCEU clarifies the scope of the concept of ‘products presented in sets’ provided for in Note 3 to Section VI of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the Tariff Nomenclature.
The dispute was between a German company and the Main Customs Office and concerned the correct tariff classification of a capsule system used in dentistry. These capsules contained two separate components — silver alloy powder and liquid mercury — intended to be mixed subsequently to produce a silver dental amalgam.
The main issue was whether the capsule system could be regarded as a ‘set of articles’ within the meaning of Note 3, despite the fact that its two components were contained in compartments that could not be separated without destroying the capsule.
This classification was decisive, since, if it were an assortment, the goods had to be classified according to the final product resulting from the mixture, that is to say, the silver dental amalgam. However, if it were not an assortment, it had to be classified according to the state of the product at the time of importation, that is to say, as a dental capsule with separate components.
From a tariff perspective, the German authorities maintained that it should be classified under subheading 2843 90 10, ‘amalgams’, subject to a tariff rate of 5.3%; however, the company considered that it should be classified under subheading 3006 40 00, ‘dental cements and other dental filling materials; bone repair cements’ with a tariff rate of 0%, on the grounds that the components did not yet form an amalgam at the time of importation.
The General Court of the European Union concludes that the decisive factor is that the components are clearly intended to be used together, that they are presented simultaneously at the time of customs clearance, and that they are complementary to one another by their nature or by their quantities. This conclusion does not derive from general interpretative rule 3(b), which advocates classification according to the material or article that confers its essential character, but rather from the application of Note 3 to Section VI, which constitutes a specific provision and takes precedence over that general rule. Therefore, the focus is not on the component that gives the product its essential character, but on the final product obtained after mixing, in this case, the silver dental amalgam.
How can we assist you?
Salinas & Partners, with over 30 years’ experience in customs and international trade matters, are at your disposal to assist you with the correct tariff classification of your products and the assessment of associated tax risks, as well as with the review and challenge of tax assessments that may arise from incorrect classification criteria.
