NO 93.02 ( REVOLVERS AND PISTOLS ) AND THE REMAINDER AS PISTOL HOLSTERS UNDER HEADING NO 42.02 .
4 WHEN ITS OBJECTION TO THAT DECISION WAS REJECTED , COLLECTOR GUNS BROUGHT AN ACTION BEFORE THE FINANZGERICHT RHEINLAND-PFALZ . IT CLAIMED THAT THE DEMAND FOR DUTY WAS UNLAWFUL SINCE THE IMPORTED GOODS FELL UNDER HEADING NO 99.05 AND WERE MOREOVER EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE NOMENCLATAURE OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL . THE AGE OF THE FIREARMS WAS IRRELEVANT . THEY WERE NOT COMMON ITEMS OF TRADE BUT OBJECTS BELONGING TO A SPECIAL TRADE , WHICH WERE RARELY OFFERED FOR SALE .
5 THE HAUPTZOLLAMT CONTENDED , ON THE OTHER HAND , THAT COLLECTORS ' PIECES RELEVANT TO THE STUDY OF ARMAMENTS , WHICH WAS MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ARMS TECHNOLOGY , MUST BE OF APPRECIABLE HISTORICAL INTEREST , OVER AND ABOVE THEIR VALUE AS SPECIMENS FOR STUDY , AND MUST ILLUSTRATE THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS AS A RESULT OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE FIELD OF ARMAMENTS TECHNOLOGY . THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL ARMS , SUCH AS PISTOLS IN THE PRESENT CASE , BASICALLY TERMINATED AT THE END OF THE LAST CENTURY OR THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT ONE , WITH THE RESULT THAT SMALL-ARMS MANUFACTURED THEREAFTER DID NOT IN PRINCIPLE SATISFY THE CONDITIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION UNDER HEADING NO 99.05 .
6 THE FINANZGERICHT RHEINLAND-PFALZ TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL NOTES ON THE RELEVANT CHAPTERS DID NOT GIVE AN ADEQUATE INDICATION OF THE MINIMUM CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE AN ITEM MIGHT BE CLASSIFIED AS A COLLECTORS ' PIECE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST AND THEREFORE STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' WHAT MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS MUST AN ARTICLE ( IN THIS INSTANCE , PISTOLS AND HOLSTERS ) DISPLAY IN ORDER TO BE ASSIGNED , AS A ' ' COLLECTORS ' PIECE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST ' ' , TO HEADING NO 99.05 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF?
'
7 IN ITS OBSERVATIONS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS FORWARDED AN EXPERT ' S OPINION FROM PROFESSOR W . HAHLWEG , THE FIRST PART OF WHICH IS DEVOTED TO THE HISTORICAL INTEREST OF ARMS COLLECTIONS . HE BASICALLY CONTENDS THAT IT IS NOT PROTOTYPES OR SPECIAL ITEMS , WHATEVER THEIR MERITS , THAT CONSTITUTE COLLECTORS ' PIECES OF HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST BUT ITEMS BELONGING TO HISTORICAL SETS OF ARMS , MADE UP OF MODELS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO THE LATEST STAGE OF PERFECTION . IN THE LIGHT OF THAT OBSERVATION THE SECOND PART OF THE OPINION CONTAINS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF COLLECTOR GUNS , WHICH ARE , ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR HAHLWEG , DIRECTED TOWARDS THE AIM OF FACILITATING THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF WEAPONS AND THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND THUS CANNOT BE CONFINED TO PROTOTYPES OR UNIQUE OR RARE ITEMS .
8 AT THE HEARING THE PLAINTIFF IN THE