' ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES AND APPARATUS . . . NOT FALLING WITHIN ANY OTHER HEADING IN THIS CHAPTER . '
5 SENELCO LODGED AN OBJECTION AGAINST THAT CLASSIFICATION WITH THE REVENUE OFFICE AND CONTENDED THAT THE ALLIGATOR TAGS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF HEADING NO 85.17 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , WHICH COVERS :
' ELECTRIC SOUND OR VISUAL SIGNALLING APPARATUS ( SUCH AS BELLS , SIRENS , INDICATOR PANELS , BURGLAR AND FIRE ALARMS ), OTHER THAN THOSE OF HEADING NO 85.09 OR 85.16 . '
6 THE REVENUE OFFICE REJECTED SENELCO ' S OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEMS FALLING WITHIN HEADING NO 85.17 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF HAVE TWO FUNCTIONS , ONE OF DETECTION AND THE OTHER OF ACTIVATING THE ALARM , WHICH ARE PERFORMED IN THIS CASE BY THE OVERHEAD SYSTEM AND THE ALARM CONSOLE . IT STATED THAT THE ALLIGATOR TAGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTESTED TARIFF CLASSIFICATION NOTICE DO NOT DETECT ANYTHING BUT MERELY DISTURB THE FIELD OF SENSITIVITY OF THE OVERHEAD SYSTEM . IT ALSO STATED THAT THEY SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF HEADING NO 85.22 C II OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTE 2 ( A ) TO SECTION XVI OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , WHICH PROVIDES THAT PARTS OF MACHINES ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS :
' GOODS OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN ANY OF THE HEADINGS OF CHAPTERS 84 AND 85 . . . ARE IN ALL CASES TO BE CLASSIFIED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HEADINGS . '
7 SENELCO APPEALED AGAINST THAT DECISION TO THE BUNDESFINANZHOF AND CONTENDED THAT THE OVERHEAD SYSTEM , THE ALARM CONSOLE AND THE TAGS CONSTITUTED A SINGLE UNIT INTENDED AS AN ANTI-THEFT DEVICE AND THAT THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS HAD NO INDEPENDENT FUNCTION CAPABLE OF INDIVIDUAL TARIFF CLASSIFICATION . IN SUPPORT OF ITS VIEW SENELCO STATED THAT THE FRENCH AND BELGIAN CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES CLASSIFIED ALLIGATOR TAGS UNDER HEADING NO . 85.17 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTE 2 ( B ) TO SECTION XVI OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS :
' OTHER PARTS , IF SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF MACHINE , OR WITH A NUMBER OF MACHINES FALLING WITHIN THE SAME HEADING ( INCLUDING A MACHINE FALLING WITHIN HEADING NO 84.59 OR 85.22 ) ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH THE MACHINES OF THAT KIND . . . ' .
8 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE BUNDESFINANZHOF REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' IS NOTE 2 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NOTE 5 TO SECTION XVI OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIF TO BE INTERPRETED TO THE EFFECT THAT INDIVIDUAL ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES , WHICH ARE PRESENTED INDEPENDENTLY , ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ' ' PARTS ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT NOTE WHERE THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE FIXED TO GOODS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IF THE