THAT THEY ARE INTENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OR THE SCOPE OF A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS .
13 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION 2 THE COMMISSION REFERS TO ITS SUGGESTED ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 ( A ) AND STATES THAT INSTEAD OF BEING GIVEN AN OVER-LITERAL INTERPRETATION , WHICH WOULD BE UNSUITABLE , THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 SHOULD BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE WORDING AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1027/79 .
14 THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT QUESTION 3 BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ; IT REFERS IN THIS RESPECT TO THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT AND ITS OWN ARGUMENTS IN CASE 236/83 . REGULATION NO 1027/79 CLARIFIED THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 , WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGE VERSIONS , BY SPECIFYING THAT AN ACCESSORY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DUTY-FREE ADMISSION ONLY IF THE MAIN APPARATUS IS ITSELF IMPORTED AND IF ITS IMPORTATION WAS CARRIED OUT BEFORE OR AT THE SAME TIME AS THAT OF THE ACCESSORY . THAT INTERPRETATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT OF 1950 AND THE 1976 NAIROBI PROTOCOL TO THAT AGREEMENT , AND THERE IS NO REASON TO INTRODUCE MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY . HAVING REGARD TO THE HEAVY COSTS INVOLVED IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER OF AN INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS , IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION WAS NOT INTENDED TO LAY DOWN SUCH A COMPLEX ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO EXEMPT ORDINARY ACCESSORIES FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES .
15 IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 , WHICH RELATES TO THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE INDEPENDENT NATURE OF AN INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 , THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT REFERENCE BE MADE TO THE FUNCTION ENVISAGED FOR THE ITEM BY THE MANUFACTURER , WHICH MAY IN MANY CASES BE INFERRED FROM ITS DESIGN AND METHOD OF OPERATION . IT SAYS THAT ALL THE OTHER POSSIBLE CRITERIA , WHETHER CONCEPTUAL OR TECHNICAL , WOULD IN PRACTICE NOT BE VERY SUITABLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFINITION . ACCORDINGLY , THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 SHOULD BE THAT INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 COMPRISE TECHNICAL DEVICES WHICH , HAVING REGARD TO THEIR DESIGN AND METHOD OF OPERATION , ARE INTENDED BY THE MANUFACTURERS TO BE USED FOR SCIENTIFIC WORK AS INDEPENDENT UNITS .
16 DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE COMMISSION MODIFIED SOMEWHAT ITS POSITION ON THE ANSWERS TO BE GIVEN TO QUESTION 1 ( B ) AND QUESTION 4 IN ORDER TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN CASE 236/83 , CITED ABOVE , WHICH HAD BEEN DELIVERED IN THE MEANTIME . IT NO LONGER MAINTAINS ITS ORIGINAL VIEW THAT AN ARTICLE BY ITS VERY NATURE ALWAYS RETAINS THE CHARACTER OF A MAIN INSTRUMENT