## Facts

- E.I. DuPont deNemours, Inc. manufactured a solid-surface material sold under the name “Corian,” and it was imported into the United Kingdom through its distributor, Dewfield Ltd (trading as C.D. (U.K.)).
- Corian was marketed and used mainly for kitchen worktops, countertops, tabletops, and similar surfaces.
- The product had a stone-like appearance (similar to marble) but was a composite consisting of about two-thirds aluminium hydroxide and one-third polymethyl methacrylate (a synthetic resin).
- United Kingdom customs authorities (the Commissioners of Customs and Excise) classified the imported Corian under a tariff heading associated with plastics rather than under the heading for “artificial stone.”
- DuPont (and the importer/distributor involved in the national dispute) challenged that classification, arguing that Corian should be treated as “artificial stone” under the Common Customs Tariff (CCT).
- The High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court) referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the relevant CCT headings.

## Issues

1. Whether a product like Corian, composed predominantly of aluminium hydroxide bound in a polymethyl methacrylate matrix, falls within the CCT heading for “artificial stone.”
2. What criteria control the meaning of “artificial stone” in the CCT when a product imitates stone in appearance and use but is formed as a resin-based composite.

## Decision

- The Court held that a product with Corian’s composition and characteristics is not covered by the CCT heading for “artificial stone.”
- The Court indicated that, given its objective characteristics, the product is to be classified under the CCT heading dealing with plastics (rather than mineral products).
- Because the case came by preliminary reference, the Court provided the interpretive ruling and left the final resolution of the national dispute (including the practical application to the imports at issue) to the referring UK court.

## Legal Principles

- Customs classification under the CCT is determined primarily by the wording of tariff headings and the relevant section and chapter notes, assessed through the goods’ objective characteristics and properties at the time of importation.
- A product’s commercial description, appearance, and typical use may be considered where helpful, but they do not control classification when the tariff scheme and the product’s objective characteristics point to another heading.
- In distinguishing “artificial stone” from plastics headings, the tariff structure draws a line between mineral-based imitation stone products and resin-based products that are plastics containing mineral fillers.
- For composite materials, the component that gives the product its structure and material identity (here, the synthetic resin matrix) can be decisive in determining the correct heading.

## Conclusion

In Case 234/81, the Court of Justice ruled on a reference from the UK Commercial Court that DuPont’s Corian—though marble-like in appearance and used for countertops—did not qualify as “artificial stone” under the Common Customs Tariff because its objective characteristics showed it to be a resin-based (plastics) material with mineral filler, and the national court was left to apply that interpretation to the dispute with UK customs.


E.I. DuPont deNemours, Inc. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Case 234/81 [1982] ECR 3315 (1982)