Before RAO and FORD, Judges FORD, Judge: The cases listed in schedule "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties which reads 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 initialed BLS (Import Specialist's Initials) by Import Specialist Bertram L. Saul (Import Specialist's Name) on the invoices covered by the protests listed on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and assessed with duty at either 12.5 or 15 percent ad valorem, under, respectively, Item 682.30 or 682.60, Tariff Schedules of the United States, consist of wiper motors and gear wheels for wiper motors, all claimed to be dutiable at 8.5 percent ad valorem within Item 692.25, TSUS, which provision was, subsequent to the dates of entry herein, redesignated Item 692.27 by Public Law 89-283. That the said motors are, in fact, more than a motor and are solely used as parts of a motor vehicle. That the said gear wheels are solely used as parts of the said wiper motors which themselves are more than a motor and are solely used as parts of a motor vehicle. That the protests listed in Schedule "A" be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the items marked with the letter "A" as a foresaid. Accepting the foregoing stipulation of facts, we find and hold that the items of merchandise marked “A” and initialed on the invoices by the designated import specialist consist of wiper motors and gear wheels for wiper motors which are parts of motor vehicles. Therefore, the claim in the protests that said merchandise is properly dutiable at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem, under item 692.25, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as redesignated item 692.27 by Public Law 89-283, is sustained. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3601) ROSS PRODUCTS, INC. v. UNITED STATES Luggage United States Customs Court, First Division Protest 67/22813 against the decision of the collector [Judgment in part for plaintiff.] (Decided November 4, 1968) Siegel, Mandell & Davidson for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and NEWMAN, Judges WATSON, Judge: This suit has been submitted for decision upon the following agreement between counsel for the respective parties: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, Esqs., attorneys for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant: 1. That the merchandise covered by this protest consists of shoe tote bags entered at San Francisco in April 1964, and classified by the collector at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem, TSUS Item 706.24. 2. That the shoe tote bags covered by this protest are in chief value of textile material as defined in headnote 2 (iv), schedule 3 and headnote 2 (a), subpart c, part 4, schedule 3, and that they are within the scope of Section 89 (b) of Public Law 89-241, the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965. 3. That the entry which is the subject of this protest was imported prior to September 1, 1964 and liquidated on August 10, 1965, prior to the enactment of Public Law 89-241, and that this protest, covering the merchandise described in paragraph one was timely filed against the liquidation. 4. That a timely request for administrative reclassification and the reliquidation of the merchandise covered by this protest in TSUS Item 706.60 at 20 per centum was timely filed with the collector at San Francisco. That the protest be deemed submitted on this stipulation, the protest being limited to the merchandise covered by this stipulation and abandoned as to all other merchandise. Upon the agreed facts, we hold the merchandise covered by the entry herein properly dutiable under item 706.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem as handbags in chief value of textile materials. Judgment will issue accordingly. (C.D. 3602) UNITED CHINA & GLASS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES Nodding head figures-Not toys-Articles of papier mache United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 65/19787-17863, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New Orleans [Judgment for plaintiff.] (Decided November 4, 1968) Stein & Shostak for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and NEWMAN, Judges MALETZ, Judge: The protests enumerated in schedule "A", hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the protests enumerated in the annexed Schedule which is incorporated herein: 1. That the merchandise represented by the items marked "A" and initialed RLF by R. L. Fagler on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests enumerated in the attached Schedule, assessed with duty at 35% ad valorem under Item 737.40 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, and claimed to be properly dutiable at only 8.5% ad valorem under Item 256.75 of said Schedules, consists of bobbing-head figures similar in all material respects to the figures the subject of Wilson's Customs Clearance, Inc. v. United States, C.D. 3061, wherein said merchandise was held to be not chiefly used for the amusement of children or adults. 2. That said merchandise is in chief value of papier mache and is not specially provided for in the Tariff Schedules of the United States. 3. That the record in C.D. 3061 may be incorporated with the record in this case. 4. That these protests may be deemed submitted on this stipulation and the record thus made. On the agreed facts and following our cited decision on the law, we hold the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, to be properly dutiable at the rate of 82 percent ad valorem under item 256.75, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as articles of papier mache, not specially provided for. To the extent indicated the protests are sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly. (C.D. 3603) HAROLD P. RYAN v. UNITED STATES Twine-Protest fails to state reasons for objection United States Customs Court, First Division Protest 67/18402 against the decision of the collector of customs at [Dismissed.] (Decided November 4, 1968) Plaintiff not represented by counsel. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Bernard J. Babb, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and NEWMAN, Judges MALETZ, Judge: When this case was called for hearing at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on May 23, 1968, defendant moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. An examination of the records in the protest before the court discloses that plaintiff failed to state adequate reasons for its objection to the decision of the collector of customs, as required by section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Accordingly, the motion is allowed and the protest is dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3604) SOUTH AMERICAN MINERALS AND MERCHANDISE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES Ores United States Customs Court, Third Division Protest 65/19789-17874 against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New Orleans [Judgment for plaintiff.] (Decided November 4, 1968) Henry I. Fillman for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RICHARDSON, LANDIS, and ROSENSTEIN, Judges RICHARDSON, Judge: The protest herein was submitted to the court for decision upon a stipulation which reads: It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court: 1. That the above Protest involves merchandise consisting of 16,560 bags of tin slag which were exported from Liberia on March 7, 1964. 2. That said merchandise was entered through the port of New Orleans, Louisiana, and was classified under item 601.27 Tariff Schedules of the United States as manganese ore containing over 10% by weight of manganese, and assessed with duty at the rate of 0.25¢ per pound on the manganese content under that item. 3. That said classification was protested under date of August 17, 1965, on the ground that said merchandise consists of materials which are residues not advanced in value or condition by any means, and which if containing over 2 percent by weight of copper, lead, or zinc, are not to be treated for the recovery thereof, and entitled to entry free of duty under item 603.65 Tariff Schedules of the United States. 4. That said merchandise is tin slag consisting of materials which are residues not advanced in value or condition by any means, and which if containing over 2% by weight of copper, lead or zinc, are not to be treated for the recovery thereof. 5. That said merchandise is a metallic mineral substance imported for the tantaliferous/columbiferous materials contained. 6. That the protest is submitted for decision on this stipulation. Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts and upon the authority of the statute cited therein we hold that the claim in the protest that the merchandise herein is a metallic mineral substance imported for its tantaliferous/columbiferous materials is sustained, and that as such, said merchandise is free of duty pursuant to item 603.65 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3605) E. DILLINGHAM, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Transportation equipment United States Customs Court, Third Division Protests 66/80387, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Ogdensburg [Judgment for plaintiffs.] (Decided November 4, 1968) Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RICHARDSON, LANDIS, and ROSENSTEIN, Judges RICHARDSON, Judge: The protests enumerated in the schedule of protests annexed hereto and made a part hereof, were submitted to the court for decision upon a stipulation which reads: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court, that the mer |