prior to importation, it was no longer known as plastic in trade and commerce or in tariff nomenclature, but became beads. Thus it was from beads-and not plastic-that the imported articles were made, Valentina, Ltd. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 19, C.D. 4046, 314 F. Supp. 781 (1970). See also L. Mendelson Co. v. United States, 9 Cust. Ct. 256, C.D. 704 (1942); R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 219, C.D. 3733, 297 F. Supp. 171 (1969), aff'd 57 CCPA 115, C.A.D. 988 (1970). CHANGE IN TARIFF STATUS RESULTING FROM MANUFACTURE When a material is so manufactured or processed that it becomes something else that is recognized in the trade and given a specific tariff status by name, the article for tariff purposes is no longer the material that it was prior to manufacture or processing. United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 68/16569 and 68/25221 against the decision of the regional commissioner of customs at the port of New York [Judgment for defendant.] (Decided February 23, 1971) Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt (Charles P. Deem of counsel) for the plaintiff. L. Patrick Gray, III, Assistant Attorney General (Velta A. Melnbrencis, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges MALETZ, Judge: These two protests which were consolidated for trial involve the proper tariff classification of articles invoiced as "plastic bead window curtains" that were imported from Hong Kong through the port of New York in 1967. The importations were classified by customs under item 741.50 of the tariff schedules as articles, not specially provided for, of beads, and assessed with duty at the rate of 25.5 percent.1 Plaintiff protests and claims that the importations are properly classifiable under item 772.35 as curtains or drapes or like furnishings of plastic, dutiable at only 12.5 percent.2 The parties have stipulated that the imports are in chief value of beads, composed wholly of plastic. Those of the imports that are involved in the first protest are described in the accompanying commercial papers as 36", 72" and 78" plastic bead window curtains 1 Item 741.50 2 Item 772.35 Articles not specially provided for, of beads, of bugles, Curtains and drapes, including panels and valances; 25.5% ad val. 12.5% ad val. consisting of 12 strands per package for the 36" and 72" items and of 20 strands per package for the 78" size item. And the imports involved in the second protest are described in the commercial papers as 78" and 94′′ plastic bead window curtains consisting of 12 strands per package for the 78" size and 20 strands per package for the 94'' size. One witness testified at trial-plaintiff's vice president who was in charge of purchasing and importing the articles merchandised by plaintiff, and who was also active in the sale and distribution of such articles. He testified that plaintiff's business consisted primarily of importing and wholesaling window coverings; and that he had purchased the imported items in question in Hong Kong and had assisted in their design. In designing the items, the witness said, he worked with plaintiff's agents and manufacturers in Hong Kong in coming up with an acceptable pattern and had the items made in standard curtain and drapery, door, and room divider sizes, which sizes range from 24 to 94 inches in length. He testified that the item consisting of 36" strands of beads was designed to be used as a window curtain. The strands, he stated, are attached to plastic clamps which were included in the imported package and are then hung from a curtain rod, as shown in an instruction sheet which was also included in the package. He testified that the item consisting of 78" strands of beads, 20 strands to a package, was designed for use in a doorway. Each package, he indicated, came with two 16-inch plastic tracks which are affixed to the jamb of the door and from which are hung the individual strands of beads, spaced any way the user wants. Additionally, he testified that the item consisting of 94" strands of beads was designed for use as a room divider, for decorative purposes, or "to hide something." It is affixed to the ceiling in the same manner as the 78'' size. The imported articles, he continued, were sold to Montgomery Ward, Spiegel's and J. C. Penney Company, as well as to smaller department stores and curtain and drapery shops. The witness has used them in his own home as window curtains, and has seen them used in friends' homes as room dividers; as window coverings; in doorways; and in conjunction with shower curtains for decorative purposes. Turning now to the legal phase, it is to be noted that beads not only are given a specific tariff status by name, they are complete commercial entities that have an independent existence as an article of commerce apart from the plastic material out of which they are made. This is evidenced by the common meaning of the term "bead" which has been defined as follows: Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary, p. 243 (1956): A little perforated sphere, ball, cylinder, or the like, usually strung on a thread or attached to a fabric for decoration.* Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 190 (1963): A small often round piece of stone, glass, shell, wood, metal, or other material that is pierced for threading on a string of wire.*** Dispositive in this context is Valentina, Ltd. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 19, C.D. 4046, 314 F. Supp. 781 (1970), reh. den. Sept. 10, 1970. In that case, imported ladies' sweaters decorated with plastic spangles were classified by the government under item 741.50 as articles of spangles. Plaintiff claimed they were properly classifiable under item 772.30 as wearing apparel of plastic. The court sustained the government's classification, holding that sweaters were not wearing apparel of plastic for tariff purposes on the ground that when the plastic material was processed into spangles prior to importation, it was no longer known as plastic in trade and commerce or in tariff nomenclature, but became spangles. Thus it was from spangles—and not plastic-that the imported sweaters were made. See also L. Mendelson Co. v. United States, 9 Cust. Ct. 256, C.D. 704 (1942; R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 219, 230, C.D. 3733, 297 F. Supp. 171, 180 (1969), aff'd 57 CCPA 115, C.A.D. 988 (1970). In the present case, similarly-to paraphrase what we said in Valentina (65 Cust. Ct. at 21, 314 F. Supp. at 782-83); “[W]hen the plastic material was manufactured into *** [beads], it was then known in trade and commerce not as plastic but rather as [beads]. In this connection, the principle is basic that once a material is so manufactured or processed that it becomes something else that is recognized in the trade and given a specific tariff status by name, the article for tariff purposes is no longer the material that it was prior to manufacture or processing.*** Applying that principle here, when the plastic material was processed into *** [beads], the importation was no longer described for tariff purposes under *** [item 772.35 as curtains and drapes, and like furnishings, of plastics] but was described under the tariff provision for articles of *** [beads-i.e., item 772.35]." We conclude, in short, that the importations were correctly classified by customs under item 741.50 as articles of beads. The protests are overruled and judgment will be entered accordingly. (C.D. 4181) A.C.G. EXPORT IMPORT v. UNITED STATES Toy books Books that contain imaginative and colorful paintings of animate and inanimate objects, each identified by appropriate caption or legend, held correctly classified under item 737.52 as toy books rather than under item 270.40 which covered "[p]icture books (not including toy books) with an accompanying text printed in any language, suitable for the use of children not over 6 years of age." United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 67/48136 (A), 67/53513 and 67/71054 against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Los Angeles [Judgment for defendant.] (Decided February 26, 1971) Glad & Tuttle (Robert Glenn White of counsel) for the plaintiff. L. Patrick Gray, III, Assistant Attorney General (Susan C. Cassell, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges MALETZ, Judge: In these three cases which were consolidated for trial, we are called upon to determine the proper tariff classification of certain laminated board books and board leaf books that were exported from England and entered at the port of Los Angeles in 1965. The books were classified by the government as toy books under item 737.52 of the tariff schedules and assessed duty at the rate of 28 percent. Plaintiff challenges this assessment and claims that the books are dutiable at only 7.5 percent under item 270.40 which covered "[p]icture books (not including toy books) with an accompanying text printed in any language, suitable for the use of children not over 6 years of age." 1 The importations, more particularly, consist of books (of laminated board and board leaves) that contain imaginative and colorful paintings of animate and inanimate objects, each identified by appropriate caption or legend. For example, the cover page of one book contains a painting of the head of a kitten and the legend "animals I love.” The succeeding pages, in turn, contain paintings of various animals, each identified by name. The cover of another book contains a painting of two circus clowns and the caption "1 2 3." Included in the book are paintings of such objects as a boy at a blackboard, accompanied by 1 In passing, it will be noted that P.L. 89-651, §§ 3(a) (1) and (2), Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 897, among other things, (1) struck out items 270.15 to 270.40 and inserted in lieu thereof item 270.25 to cover "[b]ooks not specially provided for" for which entry was to be free; and (2) amended item 737.52 to cover "[t]oy books, including coloring books and books the only reading matter in which consists of letters, numerals, or descriptive words" for which entry was likewise to be free. This statute, it is to be added, became effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 1967. Id. § 2; Proclamation No. 3754, Nov. 3, 1966, 31 F.R. 14381. This effective date was, of course, subsequent to entry of the importations involved in the present case. the caption "Learn to Count with Johnny"; a mouse and a house and the caption "One Little Mouse * One Little House"; two small boys in boats and the caption "Two Small Boys * Two Big Boats"; etc. In support of its position that the imports are "picture books" within the meaning of item 270.40 (i.e., non-toy books with an accompanying text, suitable for use of children not over six years of age) plaintiff relies on the testimony of a kindergarten teacher in Pasadena, California, who had taught school for some twenty years. Her testimony, in essence, was that she was familiar with books that are suitable for children six years old and under; that prior to her testimony she had examined the books in issue over a period of from ten days to two weeks; that in her opinion the books are suitable for little children two or three years old; and that she did not consider the books to be toys since the books are strictly visual and in her view a toy must be a plaything that can be manipulated. She conceded, however, (on crossexamination), that a child using the book would enjoy its bright colors, and hopefully would be amused by it. Finally, the witness agreed that the legends under the various pictures are simply words or figures describing the pictures. Against this background, we must conclude (i) that the record thus made fails to negate the presumptively correct chief use of the imported merchandise as toys; and (ii) that plaintiff has not proven that the descriptive words, letters or numerals contained in the imported books fall within the common meaning of the term "text" so as to be properly classifiable within the claimed provision-item 270.40. To start, headnote 2 to subpart E, part 5, schedule 7 of the tariff schedules provides that for purposes of the tariff schedules, a toy is any article chiefly used for the amusement of children or adults. Therefore, plaintiff had the burden of proving that the imported merchandise was chiefly used for something other than the amusement of children or adults. Further, general interpretative rule 10(e) (i) of the tariff schedules provides that a tariff classification controlled by use (other than actual use) is to be determined in accordance with the use in the United States, at or immediately prior to, the date of importation of articles of that class or kind to which the imported articles belong, and that the controlling use is that use which exceeds all other uses (if any) combined. Measured by these requirements, it is apparent that the testimony of plaintiff's witness falls far short of negating the presumption that the books in issue were chiefly used for the amusement of children. Nowhere is there any testimony that the witness was familiar with books of the same class or kind as the imported books. Nor is there even one specific instance in the record of the witness having seen the books in issue-or similar books-in actual use. Indeed, |