27 ).
2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY UNIVERSITAET BIELEFELD ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE PLAINTIFF ") AGAINST THE REFUSAL BY THE GERMAN CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES TO PERMIT IMPORTATION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTY IN DECEMBER 1979 OF A LASER SYSTEM FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH THE PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO USE FOR RESEARCH CONCERNING SIMULTANEOUS ELECTRIC PHOTON SCATTERING ON FREE ATOMS, INVOLVING "ATOMIC EXCITATION PROCESSES IN INTENSE PHOTON FIELDS ".
3 ON 31 MARCH 1980 THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, HAUPTZOLLAMT GIESSEN, ISSUED A PROVISIONAL TAX ASSESSMENT ACCEDING TO THE PLAINTIFF' S APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION . HOWEVER, WITH A VIEW TO VERIFYING THAT DECISION, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2784/79 OF 12 DECEMBER 1979 LAYING DOWN PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1798/75 ON THE IMPORTATION FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, L 318, P . 32 ).
4 UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROCEDURE THUS INITIATED, THE COMMISSION STATED, IN THE CONTESTED DECISION OF 13 APRIL 1982, THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1975, L 184, P . 1 ), AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1027/79 OF 8 MAY 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, L 134, P . 1 ), WERE NOT FULFILLED, SINCE APPARATUS OF EQUIVALENT SCIENTIFIC VALUE, CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES, WERE "CURRENTLY BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY ". THE COMMISSION REFERRED IN PARTICULAR TO THE "YG 482" APPARATUS MANUFACTURED BY THE FRENCH COMPANY QUANTEL AND THE "HY SERIES" APPARATUS MANUFACTURED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY J . K . LASERS LTD .
5 ON 27 MAY 1982, THE HAUPTZOLLAMT GIESSEN SERVED AN AMENDED TAX ASSESSMENT REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF A TOTAL AMOUNT OF DM 12 664.10 IN RESPECT OF COMMUNITY CUSTOMS DUTIES AND IMPORT TURNOVER TAX .
6 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION' S DECISION WAS WITHOUT FOUNDATION . THE IMPORTED APPARATUS WAS NOT THE "DCR-1A" FROM THE COMPANY QUANTA RAY BUT THE "DCR-1AA 1320" MODEL, WHICH HAS A CONSIDERABLY SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE . NEITHER THE "YG 482" APPARATUS NOR THE "HY SERIES" APPARATUS WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE IMPORTED APPARATUS, PARTICULARLY AS REGARDS THE CREST VALUES WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT .
7 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NATIONAL COURT REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE :
"IS COMMISSION DECISION 82/288/EEC OF 13 APRIL 1982 CONCERNING THE 'QUANTA RAY ND : YAG LABORATORY LASER SYSTEM, MODEL DCR-1A' APPARATUS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH APPARATUS OF THAT KIND WERE, AS THE COMMISSION STATES, MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY, THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS INFERIOR TO THAT OF THE IMPORTED APPARATUS DESIGNATED DCR-1AA 1320, REGARD BEING HAD IN PARTICULAR TO THE SPECIAL PURPOSE THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED?"
8 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT