(C.D. 3596) JERDON, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Articles of aluminum United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 66/14684, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York [Judgment in part for plaintiffs.] (Decided October 30, 1968) Siegel, Mandell & Davidson for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and NEWMAN, Judges WATSON, Judge: These suits have been submitted for decision upon the following agreement between counsel for the respective parties: IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States: 1. That the merchandise marked "A", and checked R.F.H. (Import Spec's Initials) by Import Specialist R. F. Hewitt (Import Spec's Name) on the invoices covered by the protests enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, consist of purse-sized perfume atomizers wholly or in chief value of aluminum, not coated or plated with precious metal, and valued over $5.00 per dozen, entered on and after August 31, 1963, and assessed for duty under the provisions of Item 706.55, TSUS, with duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem. 2. As imported, said atomizers are cylindrical in shape, measuring approximately 21⁄2 inches in length and 3⁄44 inch in diameter and are not, in fact, flat goods. 3. Said articles are, in fact, articles of aluminum, claimed dutiable under the provisions of Item 657.40, TSUS, at 19 per centum ad valorem. 4. Subject to the approval of the Court, the protests enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be deemed submitted upon this stipulation, and limited to the foregoing claim. The protests are abandoned in all other respects. Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, we hold the merchandise, marked with the letter "A" and initialed R.F.H. by Import Specialist R. F. Hewitt, on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the involved protests, properly dutiable under item 657.40 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem as articles of aluminum, not coated or plated with precious metal, as claimed. To the extent indicated, the protests are sustained. In all other respects and as to all other claims, the protests are overruled. Manufactures of india rubber-Parts of facemasks— United States Customs Court, Second Division Protests 63/7434, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at [Judgment in part for plaintiffs.] (Decided October 30, 1968) Glad & Tuttle for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RAO and FORD, Judges RAO, Chief Judge: Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these cases for decision on a stipulation reading as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the items marked "A" and initialed GLS (Import Specialist's Initials) by Gerald L. Spindle (Import Specialist's Name) on the invoices covered by the protests enumerated on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof and assessed with duty at 45%, 4012% or 36% ad valorem under paragraph 359, consists of rubber face masks similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of W. J. Byrnes & Co. Inc., National Welding Equipment Co., v. United States, C.D. 2613, wherein said merchandise was held dutiable under the provision for manufactures of india rubber at 1212% under paragraph 1537(b), as modified. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in W.J. Byrnes & Co. Inc., National Welding Equipment Co., v. United States, C.D. 2613 be incorporated in the record of this case and that the protests be submitted on this stipulation, the protests being limited to the items marked "A" as aforesaid. In view of this stipulation and on the authority of the decision cited, we hold that the merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter "A" and with the initials of the import specialist on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests enumerated on schedule "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, is properly dutiable at 121⁄2 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 1537 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. 53865, supplemented by T.D. 53877, as manufactures of india rubber, not specially provided for. To that extent the protests are sustained. As to all other claims, they are overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3598) CHEMCO PHOTO PRODUCTS CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Copper engravers' plates United States Customs Court, Second Division Protests 67/82029, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at [Judgment for plaintiffs.] (Decided October 30, 1968) Siegel, Mandell & Davidson for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RAO and FORD, Judges RAO, Chief Judge: Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these cases for decision on a stipulation reading as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States: That the items marked "A", and checked FRB (Import Spec's Initials) by Import Specialist Frank R. Brennan (Import Spec's Name) on the invoices covered by the protests enumerated above consist of copper engraving sheets assessed at 52 cents per pound under the provision in Paragraph 381, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802) for copper engravers' plates, ground. It is claimed that the copper sheets at bar should have been assessed at the rate of 32 cents per pound under Paragraph 381, as modified, supra, as copper engravers' plates, not ground. The merchandise covered by the instant protests is, in fact, rolled copper engravers' plates and does not include plates of matte or gravure quality. That the protests enumerated above be deemed submitted on this stipulation, the protests being limited to the items marked with the letter "A", as aforesaid. Although the merchandise was assessed with duty under paragraph 381, as modified, at the rate applicable to copper engravers' plates, ground, the collector's reports on protest describe the merchandise as "Copper engravers' plates, not ground." In view of the foregoing, we hold that the merchandise, represented by the items marked with the letter "A" and with the initials of the import specialist on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests enumerated on the attached schedule of protests, is properly dutiable at 312 cents per pound under paragraph 381, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, as copper engravers' plates, not ground. The protests are sustained and judgment will be entered for the plaintiffs. (C.D. 3599) CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, A/C U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Electric lighting equipment for motor vehicles United States Customs Court, Second Division Protests 65/24646, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Los Angeles [Judgment for plaintiffs.] (Decided October 30, 1968) Stein & Shostak for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RAO and FORD, Judges RAO, Chief Judge: Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these cases for decision on a stipulation reading as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows: 1. That the merchandise covered by the entries and protests enumerated in Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and assessed with duty at 19% ad valorem under Item 653.40 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, consists of electric lighting equipment designed for motor vehicles and parts thereof. 2. That said protests are abandoned as to all other merchandise. 3. That the merchandise covered by the entries enumerated in Schedule A annexed hereto was entered or withdrawn from warehouse after August 31, 1963, the effective date of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, and before December 7, 1965, the effective date of the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965, Public Law 89-241. 4. That said protests were filed on all of the entries enumerated in said Schedule A, under Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930, within 60 days after the dates of liquidation thereof, and that said protests were pending for decision by this Court on October 7, 1965, the date of enactment and/or on December 7, 1965, the effective date of the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965, Public Law 89-241, 89th Congress. 5. That within 120 days after the date of enactment of said Public Law 89-241, a request was filed with the Collector of Customs at the port of entry, for liquidation or reliquidation of each of the entries enumerated in Schedule A and for classification of said merchandise at 8.5% ad valorem under Item 683.65 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as amended by Section 36 (h) of said Public Law 89-241. 6. That the protests enumerated in the annexed Schedule of Cases may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise as aforesaid. Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of fact, we find that plaintiffs have complied with both section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and section 2 (b) of the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965, Public Law 89-241, 100 Treas. Dec. 661, T.D. 56511, and that the merchandise covered by the entries and protests enumerated in schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is properly dutiable at 8.5 per centum ad valorem under item 683.65 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as amended, as electric lighting equipment designed for motor vehicles and parts thereof. The protests are sustained and judgment will be entered for the plaintiffs. (C.D. 3600) ROBERT BOSCH CORP. v. UNITED STATES Machines and parts-Item 692.27 United States Customs Court, Second Division Protests 66/13413, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York [Judgment for plaintiff.] (Decided October 30, 1968) Glad & Tuttle for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. |