THEREFORE COMPONENTS , SPARE PARTS OR ACCESSORIES SPECIFIC TO THOSE INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS?
2.DOES THE PHRASE ' ' WHICH QUALIFY FOR DUTY-FREE ADMISSION ' ' ENTAIL THAT THE INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS FOR THE OPERATION OF WHICH THE COMPONENTS , SPARE PARTS OR ACCESSORIES ARE REQUIRED :
( A)ARE OR WERE THEMSELVES IMPORTED , OR IS IT SUFFICIENT THAT THEY
( B)SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN FOR ADMISSION FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF DUTIES , WITH THE RESULT THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 APPLIES EVEN WHERE SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS ARE IMPORTED FROM A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY AND SOME ARE MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY , PROVIDED THAT NO INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS OF SCIENTIFIC VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS ASSEMBLED FROM THOSE COMPONENTS ARE MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY?
7 FOLLOWING A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND LAW , THE FINANZGERICHT INDICATED THAT IT WAS IN FAVOUR OF AN INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COMPONENTS IN QUESTION TO BE ADMITTED FREE OF DUTY . IT CONSIDERED SUCH A SOLUTION TO BE REASONABLE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF A RATIONAL INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOUR .
8 THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT . THE COMMISSION HAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OBSERVATIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY SUPPORT THE HAUPTZOLLAMT ' S POINT OF VIEW .
9 AS REGARDS THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE FINANZGERICHT , THE COMMISSION CONTENDED THAT COMPONENTS WHICH COULD NOT HAVE ANY FUNCTION OTHER THAN THAT OF BEING INCORPORATED IN A UNIT COULD NOT AT THE SAME TIME BE DESCRIBED AS SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION IN QUESTION . IN VIEW OF THEIR NATURE , THEREFORE , SUCH COMPONENTS COULD NOT QUALIFY AS SUCH FOR THE EXEMPTION LAID DOWN FOR SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS . THEY COULD BENEFIT FROM SUCH EXEMPTION ONLY IF THEY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) WHICH WERE APPLICABLE TO COMPONENTS .
10 AS REGARDS THE SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS , THE COMMISSION PUT FORWARD TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTS . TO BEGIN WITH , IT DREW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT REGU LATION NO 1798/75 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON TWO OCCASIONS . FIRST IT WAS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1027/79 OF 8 MAY 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 134 , P . 1 ) IN ORDER TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PROTOCOL ADOPTED AT THE 19TH GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO AT NAIROBI ON 26 NOVEMBER 1976 AMENDING AND CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT ( PROTOCOL REGISTERED WITH THE UNITED NATIONS UNDER NO 20669 ). IT WAS CLEAR FROM ANNEX D ( II ) TO THAT PROTOCOL , WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) BY REGULATION NO 1027/79 , THAT COMPONENTS WERE TO BE ADMITTED FREE OF DUTY ONLY IF THEY WERE INTENDED FOR INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS IMPORTED PREVIOUSLY