1/71 OF THE COUNCIL AMENDING THE CCT AND CONTAINING THE ADDITIONAL NOTE IN QUESTION, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THEY APPLID HEADING 90.07 A AND DUTY AT 14 PER CENT .
FIRST QUESTION
7 IN ITS FIRST QUESTION THE TARIEFCOMMISSIE ASKS WHETHER IT IS LEGAL TO CLASSIFY UNDER SUBHEADING 90.07 A APPARATUS WHICH, IN ITS VIEW, COMES UNDER SUBHEADING 84.54 B BY A REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL BY MEANS OF AN ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER 90 WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT OF THE WORDING OF HEADING 90.07 .
8 UNDER ARTICLE 28 OF THE TREATY, ANY AUTONOMOUS ALTERATION OR SUSPENSION OF DUTIES IN THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COUNCIL .
9 IN THE VERSION IN FORCE AT THE TIME WHEN THE IMPORTATION IN QUESTION TOOK PLACE, SECTION I A OF PART I OF THE CCT PROVIDES, IN THE RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE, THAT FOR LEGAL PURPOSES THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEADINGS IS TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE HEADINGS AND ANY RELATIVE SECTION OR CHAPTER NOTES .
10 THE ADDITIONAL NOTE IN DISPUTE, DECIDED UPON BY THE COUNCIL, BECOMES PART OF THE HEADING TO WHICH IT REFERS AND HAS THE SAME BINDING EFFECT WHETHER IT CONSTITUTES AN AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE HEADING OR SUPPLEMENTS IT .
11 IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, NOT POSSIBLE TO IMPUGN THIS METHOD OF LEGISLATION WHICH IS, MOREOVER, CURRENT PRACTICE IN THIS FIELD AND WAS PROVIDED FOR UNDER REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 97/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 16 JANUARY 1969 ON MEASURES TO BE TAKEN FOR UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE CCT ( OJ ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 12 ).
12 THUS, THE CONTESTED NOTE IN ITSELF CONSTITUTES EITHER AN INTERPRETATION WHICH DOES NOT CALL FOR AMENDMENT OF THE WORDING OF THE HEADING CONCERNED OR, IF NEED BE,A LEGITIMATE SUPPLEMENT TO THE WORDING WHICH IS THEREBY ADAPTED TO MEET THE NEW SITUATION .
SECOND QUESTION
13 THE SECOND QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS :
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLES 60 AND 65 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER POWERS AND WITH ORGANIZATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW HAVE LEGALLY BINDING FORCE AFTER THEY HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, FURTHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE GATT TREATY, TO WHICH THE NETHERLANDS ARE A PARTY, CONSTITUTES SUCH AN AGREEMENT AND FINALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED HEADING 84.54 TOGETHER WITH THE DUTY ATTACHING THERETO, WAS BOUND ON THE OCCASION OF THE SO-CALLED KENNEDY ROUND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GATT, IS PERMISSIBLE CONTRARY TO THE AFOREMENTIONED BINDING AND WITHOUT ANY PROVISION BEING MADE IN RELATION TO THE NETHERLANDS, FOR A HIGHER DUTY TO BE CHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS FALLING WITHIN THIS HEADING BY CLASSIFYING THIS PRODUCT UNDER ANOTHER CHAPTER AND ANOTHER HEADING BY MEANS OF A REGULATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC?
IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRIORITY