assessed at the appropriate rates, according to the value of the imported articles, under the provision in paragraph 368(a), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 368(a)), as modified by the trade agreement with Switzerland (T.D. 48093), for mechanisms suitable for measuring the flowage of electricity is claimed dutiable at 134 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 353 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device. Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of multitesters similar in all material respects to those the subject of United States v. G. L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc. (49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. No. 68185.-Palley Supply Co. v. United States, protest 63/1094 (Los Angeles). TABLE KNIVES HUNTING KNIVES-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 4 cents each and 171⁄2 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 355, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 355), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52820), for table knives, designed for household use, 4 inches or more in length, exclusive of handle, is claimed dutiable at 2 cents each and 121⁄2 percent ad valorem under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), for hunting knives with handles of wood, designed for other than household, kitchen, or butchers' use. Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hunting knives with handles of wood, more than 4 inches in length, exclusive of handle, specially designed for other than household, kitchen, or butchers' use, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. No. 68186.-Winter, Wolff & Co., Inc. v. United States, protests 59/15867 (B) and 59/27006 (B) (Los Angeles). GALVANIZED WIRE-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at the appropriate rate under the provision in paragraph 316(a), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 316(a)), as modified, for round iron or steel wire, valued over 6 cents per pound, galvanized, is claimed dutiable at 4 cent per pound under the provision in paragraph 317 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 317), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for galvanized wire commonly used for fencing purposes. Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wire, not larger than twenty one-hundredths and not smaller than eight one-hundredths of an inch in diameter, commonly used for fencing purposes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. No. 68187.-Charles Sadek Import Co., Inc. v. United States, protest 63/4353 (New York). HIBACHIS-ALUMINUM HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS-METAL STOVES-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 31⁄2 cents per pound and 17 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 339, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for aluminum household utensils is claimed dutiable at 121⁄2 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for metal cooking stoves of the household type. Opinion by RAO, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hibachis similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. No. 68188.-Alltransport, Incorporated v. United States, protest 62/12378 (New York). PROTEST UNTIMELY-NO APPEARANCE.-When this case was called for trial. there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. Opinion by RAO, J. Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, DECEMBER 19, 1963 No. 68189.-W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. United States, protest 63/5494 (New York). PROTEST UNTIMELY-NO APPEARANCE.-When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. Opinion by DONLON, J. Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT Valuation Decisions on Remand from Protest Proceedings (V.D. 124) MANCA, INC. v. UNITED STATES Enlargers and accessory lenses Remand of protest 326550-K Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 01949. (Decided June 26, 1963) Eugene R. Pickrell for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. OLIVER, Chief Judge: This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in Manca, Inc. v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct. 565, Abstract 61972. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that the protest had been prematurely filed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636 (d)). Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the enlargers and accessory lenses covered by the entry involved herein is statutory export value and that such value therefor is as follows: Entry No. Merchandise United States dollars per each 214.80 less 48% plus cost of packing 26.40 less 48% plus cost of packing On the basis of the record before me, I hold that the proper dutiable values of the merchandise in question are as hereinabove itemized, and judgment will be rendered accordingly. (V.D. 125) MANCA, INC. v. UNITED STATES Microscopes and cabinets Remand of protests 309199-K and 309201-K Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 982731, etc. (Decided June 26, 1963) Eugene R. Pickrell for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. OLIVER, Chief Judge: This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in Manca, Inc. v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct. 514, Abstract 61798. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that the protests had been prematurely filed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636 (d)). Stipulated facts, upon which the cases have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the microscopes and cabinets covered by the entries involved herein is statutory export value and that such value therefor is as follows: On the basis of the record before me, I hold that the proper dutiable values of the merchandise in question are as hereinabove itemized, and judgment will be rendered accordingly. (V.D. 126) OLD DELFT OPTICAL CO., INC. 2. UNITED STATES Scanning stereoscopes Remand of protest 60/18592 Entered at New York, N.Y. Entry No. 845924. (Decided September 9, 1963) Tompkins & Tompkins for the plaintiff. John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. OLIVER, Chief Judge: This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in Old Delft Optical Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 365, Abstract 66210. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that since no proper notice of appraisement was sent by the collector to the consignee, his agent, or attorney, the appraisement of the merchandise and the subsequent liquidation were invalid. The protest was, therefore, dismissed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable value, in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)), of the 25 scanning stereoscopes, exported from Holland in December 1957, which are covered by the entry involved herein. Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is 1,750 florins for each scanning stereoscope, plus packing, as invoiced, prorated. Judgment will be rendered accordingly. |