THE TIME OF THE ORDER IS NOT , ACCOUNT BEING TAKEN OF COMMERCIAL PRACTICES IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR UNDER CONSIDERATION , APPRECIABLY LONGER THAN THE DELIVERY PERIOD OF THE INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE FOR THE EXEMPTION . . . OR WHERE THIS PERIOD DOES NOT EXCEED THE LATTER TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE INTENDED PURPOSE OR USE FOR WHICH THE INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS WAS INITIALLY INTENDED WOULD BE APPRECIABLY AFFECTED THEREBY ' .
18 AS THE COURT HAS STATED , MOST RECENTLY IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1984 ( CASE 185/83 INTERFACULTAIR INSTITUUT ELECTRONENMICROSCOPIE V INSPECTEUR DER INVOERRECHTEN EN ACCIJNCEN ( 1984 ) ECR 3623 ), THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INSTRUMENTS IN QUESTION ARE EQUIVALENT MUST NOT BE DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WHICH THE USER DESCRIBED IN HIS APPLICATION AS BEING NECESSARY FOR HIS RESEARCH BUT PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THEIR CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE EXPERIMENTS FOR WHICH THE USER INTENDED TO USE THE IMPORTED INSTRUMENTS .
19 HOWEVER , IT IS CLEAR BOTH FROM THAT JUDGMENT AND FROM THE VERY TERMS OF THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 , THAT THE STARTING POINT OF THAT OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION IS THE SPECIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT ENVISAGED BY THE USER OF THE IMPORTED APPARATUS . THE GROUP OF EXPERTS IS NOT THEREFORE FREE TO BASE ITS DETERMINATION ON THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE PROJECT . IF IT DID SO IN THIS CASE , THE CONTESTED DECISION IS VITIATED BY AN ERROR OF LAW .
20 FURTHERMORE , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION TO IMPORT THE APPARATUS IN QUESTION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTY WERE OBJECTIVELY NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE SPECIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT ENVISAGED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THAT NONE OF QUANTEL ' S STANDARD MODELS MET ALL OF THOSE SPECIFICATIONS .
21 EVEN THOUGH , ACCORDING TO THE THIRD INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 , THE USER OF THE APPARATUS MUST ACCEPT A CERTAIN DELIVERY PERIOD FOR COMMUNITY APPARATUS , AN APPARATUS WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PUT INTO PRODUCTION AND WHICH MUST BE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE USER CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS ' BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY ' OR , IN THE TERMS USED TO EXPRESS THE SAME IDEA IN THE THIRD RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION , ' AVAILABLE . . . IN THE COMMUNITY ' . IT FOLLOWS THAT , AT LEAST IN THAT RESPECT , THE CONTESTED DECISION IS VITIATED BY A MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW .
22 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT MUST THEREFORE BE THAT COMMISSION DECISION NO 82/83/EEC OF 23 DECEMBER 1981 ESTABLISHING THAT THE APPARATUS DESCRIBED AS ' QUANTA RAY ND : YAG LABORATORY LASER SYSTEM , MODEL DCR-1A ' MAY NOT BE IMPORTED FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF