1BY ORDER OF 6 OCTOBER 1977 , WHICH REACHED THE COURT ON 8 NOVEMBER 1977 , THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE VALUATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( I ), P . 170 ), IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 3 THEREOF , AND OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON 14 JULY 1977 IN CASE 1/77 (( 1977 )) ECR 1473 ).
2THE QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE VALUE OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NORMAL PRICE OF GOODS ONLY IF THE PROCESS CAN ONLY BE PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS OR WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE PATENT FOR THE PROCESS MUST ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE NORMAL PRICE IF , ALTHOUGH THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THOSE GOODS CONSISTS IN THE CARRYING OUT OF THE PROCESS , THE PROCESS CAN ALSO BE USED IN CONNEXION WITH OTHER TYPES OF GOODS .
3THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT ALREADY PROVIDES THAT : ' ' BY ONLY MENTIONING PATENTED INVENTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED , ARTICLE 3 SEEMS TO EXCLUDE PATENTED INVENTIONS WHICH RELATE TO THE PROCESS OF USE OF THE ARTICLE . HOWEVER , THIS DISTINCTION LOSES ITS MEANING IN CASES IN WHICH THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE AND THE PROCESS OF USE THEREOF ARE SO CLOSELY LINKED THAT THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE AND THE PROCESS OF USE ARE EMBODIED IN ONE AND THE SAME ARTICLE . IN FACT THE RESULT OF AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BASIC PROVISION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 1 OF THE REGULATION IS THAT A PATENTED PROCESS , THE CARRYING OUT OF WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ONLY PROFITABLE USE OF THE GOODS AND WHICH IS ONLY PUT INTO EFFECT BY THE USE OF THOSE GOODS , IS REGARDED AS EMBODIED IN THE IMPORTED GOODS ' ' .
4THE OPERATIVE PART OF THAT JUDGMENT MUST THEREFORE BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION . IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO STATE TO THAT EFFECT THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN .