Skip to content
OverviewTARIC NomenclatureClassification GuideBTIEU Classification RulingsCJEU Case Law - Tariff ClassificationMarket IntelligenceOrigin of GoodsExport ControlCBAM CalculatorEUDR CheckerClassifyAI SHCustoms ValueIncoterms® 2020
Overview

Tariff Classification

TARIC Nomenclature
Classification Guide
BTI
EU Classification Rulings
CJEU Case Law - Tariff Classification
Market Intelligence

Origin of Goods

Origin of Goods
Origin guides

Export control

Export Control

Environmental

CBAM Calculator
EUDR Checker

Tools

ClassifyAI SH/TARIC
Customs Value
Incoterms® 2020
ClassifyAI SH/TARIC

Automated tariff classification with GRI justification

Classify a product
Need help?

Ask a question about this code or find a tariff classification expert.

Ask a question
  1. The Trade Hub
  2. ...Customs Intelligence
  3. CJEU Case Law

CJEU Case Law - Tariff Classification

Court of Justice of the EU judgments on customs classification and the Combined Nomenclature - binding legal authority

See also

TARIC Nomenclature

25 000+ codes

BTI

1 000 000+ BTI

EU Classification Rulings

500+ rulings

The Trade Hub
The Trade Hub
  • Q&A Forum
  • Regulatory Watch
  • Regulations
Log inSign up
Log inSign up

6 judgments - HS 8525

C-810/18
CJEU

DHL Logistics (Slovakia) spol. s r. o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules: The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that digital video camera recorders having a dual function, that is to say, to capture and record both still images and sequences of video, come under subheading 85258091 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘video camera recorders’, even though, with regard to sequences of video, those cameras allow such sequences to be captured and recorded only with an image resolution quality lower than 800 × 600 pixels, provided that the principal function of those digital video camera recorders is to capture and record such sequences, this being a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain. [Signatures] ( *1 ) Language of the case: Slovak.

Apr 30, 20208525
C-372/17
CJEU

Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018.#Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Volatile-memory camera, meaning that recorded images are deleted when the camera is switched off or when new images are captured — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 19 and 8525 80 30 — Explanatory Notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 — Interpretation — Validity.#Case C-372/17.

Sep 13, 20188525
C-435/15 and C-666/15
CJEU

GROFA GmbH and Others v Hauptzollamt Hannover and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 March 2017.#GROFA GmbH and Others v Hauptzollamt Hannover and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.#References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Video Camera Recorders — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 — Explanatory notes — Interpretation — Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 1249/2011 and 876/2014 — Interpretation — Validity.#Joined Cases C-435/15 and C-666/15.

Mar 22, 20178525
C-435/15 et C-666/15
CJEU

GROFA GmbH contre Hauptzollamt Hannover et X et GoPro Coöperatief UA contre Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 22 mars 2017.#GROFA GmbH contre Hauptzollamt Hannover et X et GoPro Coöperatief UA contre Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Tarif douanier commun – Positions tarifaires – Classement des marchandises – Caméscopes – Nomenclature combinée – Sous-positions 8525 80 30, 8525 80 91 et 8525 80 99 – Notes explicatives – Interprétation – Règlements d’exécution (UE) no 1249/2011 et (UE) no 876/2014 – Interprétation – Validité.#Affaires jointes C-435/15 et C-666/15.

Mar 22, 20178525
C-178/14
CJEU

Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Vario Tek

Mar 5, 20158525
C-312/07.
CJEU

JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes - Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières.

On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules: 1. A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 only if the function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance or if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to promote that characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special skills, without modification of the camcorder’s hardware. Where the camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that, once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another camcorder whose function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone is active at the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions independently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature. 2. The explanatory notes to that Combined Nomenclature relating to subheading 8525 40 99, published on 6 July 2001 and 23 October 2002, are interpretative in character and do not have legally binding force. They are in accordance with the wording of the Combined Nomenclature and do not alter its scope. It follows that the adoption of a new classification regulation

Jun 5, 20088525