of the treaty with Ireland under consideration require that products of Ireland be accorded treatment within the United States upon terms "no less favorable" than the treatment accorded therein to products of the United States in all matters affecting internal taxation. The Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., Inc. case is not distinguished upon the relevant facts or the law from the case before the court and it is stare decisis herein. In the China Liquor Distributing Co. et al. v. United States case in 1964 (52 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 847, 343 F. 2d 1005, cert. den. 380 U.S. 962), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in affirming the decision of the Customs Court stated that "the issue decided in Bercut is not substantially different from that here. . . ." Moreover, nothing is seen in the new evidence of record here to warrant a different result from that reached in Bercut. While the evidence establishes that importers often follow the practice of importing the spirits bottled in under proof condition, the fact still is, as recognized in Bercut, that they are free to import spirits at proof or over proof and have the commodity taxed accordingly. Since we have concluded that Irish whisky imported below proof is subject to taxation on the wine gallon basis, it follows that whisky imported from Scotland below proof must be taxed on the same basis. We regard the views expressed hereinbefore as being decisive of the issue presented in the stipulated facts at bar. And since we find no basis for adjustment of the quantities of spirits on which internal revenue taxes were assessed against the merchandise at bar, consideration of the amended protest claim for refund of duties becomes academic. For the reasons stated the protests herein are overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3641) INTER-MARITIME FWDG. CO., INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 67/4200, etc., against the decision of the regional commissioner of customs at the port of New York [Judgment for plaintiffs.] (Decided December 16, 1968) Allerton deC. Tompkins for the plaintiffs. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and NEWMAN, Judges NEWMAN, Judge: These protests, enumerated in schedule "A", hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation between counsel for the respective parties, 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, Defendant, subject to the approval of the court, that the items marked "A" and initialed "A" by Import Specialist Geo. H. Littlejohn Joseph Sollazzo on the invoices covered by the protests listed in the below Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, which were classified under Item 706.08, T-S-U-S., with duty at 20% ad valorem, consist of cases, entered or withdrawn for consumption after August 30, 1963, and prior to December 7, 1965, imported as the containers for radios, and that said cases were of the usual type ordinarily sold at retail with their contents, which contents were classified with duty at 1212% ad valorem, under Item 685.22 of said Tariff Schedules. Note Section 4 of Public Law 89-241, T.D. 56511. The protests are abandoned as to all other merchandise. That the protests in said Schedule A, which requested reliquidations for the entries under protest, were filed within the permissible period for filing such requests under Section 2 of said Public Law 89-241 as extended by Public Law 90–36, T.D. 67–176. The protests in said Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation. Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, we hold that the merchandise assessed with duty at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under item 706.08 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, and marked with the letter "A" and initialed GL or JS by Import Specialists George H. Littlejohn or Joseph Sollazzo, on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the protests listed in schedule "A", is properly subject to duty in accordance with section 4 of the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-241, 79 Stat. 933), at the rate of 12.5 per centum ad valorem under item 685.22 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as containers of usual types ordinarily sold at retail with their contents. To the extent indicated, the protests are sustained. Judgment will issue accordingly. (C.D. 3642) AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR Co. v. UNITED STATES Machines and parts United States Customs Court, Second Division Protest 67/28868 against the decision of the collector of customs at the [Judgment for plaintiff.] (Decided December 16, 1968) Stein & Shostak for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Before RAO and FORD, Judges, and WILSON, Senior Judge WILSON, Judge: The merchandise covered by the instant protest consists of breakers and breaker assemblies which were assessed with duty at the rate of 17.5 per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provisions of item 685.90 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as electrical switches relays and parts thereof. It is claimed in said protest that the merchandise at issue is properly dutiable at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of item 683.60 of said tariff schedules as breakers and breaker assemblies which constitute other electrical starting and ignition equipment for internal combustion engines and parts thereof. This protest has been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation of counsel for the respective parties which reads as follows: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the protest enumerated in the annexed Schedule which is incorporated herein: 1. That the merchandise represented by the items marked "A" and initialed JPD by J. P. Dwyer on the invoices accompanying the entry covered by the protest enumerated in the attached Schedule, assessed with duty at 1712% ad valorem under Item 685.90 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States and claimed properly dutiable at only 81%% ad valorem under Item 683.60 of said Schedules consists of breakers and breaker assemblies which constitute other electrical starting and ignition equipment for internal combustion engines, and parts thereof. 2. That this protest may be deemed submitted on this stipulation and the record thus made. Upon the agreed facts, we hold the merchandise here in issue identified by invoice items marked and checked as aforesaid, to be dutiable at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of item 683.60 of said tariff schedules as articles which constitute other electrical starting and ignition equipment and parts thereof. The claim in the protest to that effect is sustained. All other claims are, however, overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 3643) VERONA DYESTUFFS, DIV. OF VERONA PHARMA CHEMICAL CORP v. UNITED STATES Memorandum to accompany order United States Customs Court, Second Division Port of New York, protest 67/62498 on metallic containers [Motion for pretrial conference denied.] [Protest dismissed.] (Dated December 16, 1968) Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt (Charles P. Deem of counsel) for the plaintiff. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Steven R. Sosnov, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before RAO, FORD, and NEWMAN, Judges RAO, Chief Judge: This case is before the court on two motions: (1) A motion brought by plaintiff for pretrial conference for the purpose of obtaining admissions of certain facts from the defendant which it is alleged would simplify the issues, avoid unnecessary proof, and limit the number of witnesses. It is opposed by the defendant on the ground that the protest fails to state a cause of action because the essence of it concerns valuation of the merchandise. (2) A motion brought by defendant for dismissal of the protest on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction thereof in that it relates only to appraisement matters which have become final by operation of law. Section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Plaintiff claims that the protest relates to the action of the liquidating officer in failing to deduct the cost of the drums from the value of the merchandise. A previous motion to dismiss made at the calendar call on November 12, 1968 was denied without prejudice and the case continued until December. The merchandise involved herein consists of color dyes imported in steel drums. The dyes were entered at $5.56 per pound less 1 percent, less $24.00, representing the cost of the containers. The steel drums were entered at $24.00. The appraiser's notation states: Appraised at U.S. $5.56 per lb. Drums (not included in above) The summary sheet indicates that the value was advanced and notice of appraisement was sent to the importer stating that the appraised value exceeded the entered value. No appeal for reappraisement was filed. In liquidation, duty was assessed on the appraised value of the dyes at 40% ad valorem under item 406.50, Tariff Schedules of the United States, and at 10% on the appraised value of the drums under item 640.30. The protest is directed toward the assessment of duty on the drums under item 640.30, but states: You have assessed duty on these drums not only as reusable containers of merchandise but you have also included the cost of drums in the value of the merchandise. This double assessment of duties is improper and contrary to law. You should reliquidate this entry and assess duty only on the value of the merchandise at the rate applicable to the merchandise. See General Aniline Works, Inc. v. United States, 63 T.D. 1582, Abstract No. 24382. Plaintiff thus is claiming that the appraised value of the merchandise included the cost of the drums and that, therefore, in assessing duty on the merchandise the cost of the drums should have been deducted. The appraiser's notation quoted above indicates that the merchandise and the drums were appraised separately at separate values, and that the cost of the drums was not included in the value of the merchandise. Plaintiff contends to the contrary, on the ground that in using the word "packed" with reference to the merchandise the appraiser was including the cost of the drums. This does not follow as the invoice lists an amount for packing (labor) in addition to the cost of the containers. The appraisement appears to be in accordance with an abstract of unpublished decision, 85 Treas. Dec. 77-78, T.D. 52431 (3), which states: *** The principle of this abstract is applicable to any case in which merchandise is imported in usual containers which are separately dutiable, such as drums classifiable under paragraph 328 of the tariff |