more than a motor and accordingly is not classifiable under item 660.80. The issue is thus whether the imported spring motor with the bent shaft is a "motor" within the meaning of item 660.89 or is more than a "motor." The record shows that the motor in question is wound with a key or winding knob to get it to operate. The function of the motor is to slowly rotate the bent shaft. The bent shaft in turn gives a camming action to the head of the doll and lifts the body of the doll to give it a realistic, lifelike look. The camming action is accomplished by winding the spring which upon release turns the bent shaft by means of gears and a butterfly-type governor whose purpose is to avoid expending the power almost immediately and to maintain the same rate of torque so that the head of the doll may move uniformly. The bent shaft in the present mechanism is threaded into a main shaft which is situated in the plastic case that houses the motor. Were the bent shaft straight, the field of energy would be a radial force around the shaft; by virtue of the bend in the shaft, the direction of this force is diverted into a camming action. The one witness called at trial-plaintiff's toolroom superintendent-testified that all spring motors require some type of shaft and gears; that the bent shaft is merely an extension of the main shaft; and that its function is to transfer the power released by that spring into a usable form. He added that although a partial bend in the shaft is required, on occasion it became necessary to reform the shaft in the United States in order to obtain the required action. The witness further stated that although the motor could transmit power without the bent shaft, some other shaft or attachment would be required in order to utilize the power which is released. Finally, the witness testified that the bent shaft is required to utilize the power of the imported motor and that as such it is part of the motor. On the basis of this record, it must be concluded that the imported drive mechanism is more than a motor due to the addition of the bent shaft and thus does not fall within the specific provision for "springoperated motors." In the first place, the bent shaft is not an essential and required part of the spring-operated motor; rather, it is an essential and required part of the drive mechanism (and of the doll), but not of the motor. Put otherwise, there is a distinction between the motor-which is a source of mechanical power-and the bent shaft which is added to the motor to change the radial motion into a camming action. This is made clear by the following testimony (R. 25): Well, for instance, if I wanted to transmit the power in a simple, radial, circular motion rather than have a bent shaft, I would not put a bent shaft on, I would put a straight shaft on it or a gear shaft on it. Relevant also on this aspect are the following questions and answers (R. 27): Q. Would the spring motor operate without or could it serve * any useful purpose without the addition of a bent shaft or extension? A. Would it serve any purpose? Q. Could it? A. Yes. Definitely. Even without an extension. Q. But, would the power be transmitted in a useable form? A. Yes, yes. It would. Q. Without the bent shaft? A. That's correct. Q. Would some other attachment be required in order to use it? What this testimony emphasizes is that the spring-wound motor is complete without the bent shaft. For in that form, the motor produces power in a usable form. To complete the motor, there is no need whatever for the bent shaft. It is quite true that the bent shaft mechanism here involved is quite a simple one. However, this in no way detracts from the significance of its function-which is to divert the direction of the radial force into a camming action; and this function is quite different from the function of a protruding straight shaft which might be connected to and act as an extension of the main shaft to transmit power in a radial direction. To sum up, the bent shaft was added to the motor in order to create the proper camming action for the doll. Hence, though simple in its operation, it is significant in the effect it achieves. Cf. Gamble Vargish & Co. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 448, C.D. 2834 (1966). Further, the bent shaft does not complete the already existent motor, nor is it incidental or auxiliary to the motor's operation. Cf. Schick X-Ray Co., Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 430, C.D. 4013 (1970). To the contrary, the motor is complete with its main shaft and without the bent shaft. Thus the motor and bent shaft together comprise more than a motor; they comprise the major components of the doll's drive mechanism. See e.g., Servo-Tek Products Co., Inc. v. United States, 57 CCPA 13, C.A.D. 969 (1969); United States v. The A. W. Fenton Company, Inc., 49 CCPA 45, C.A.D. 794 (1962); James G. Wiley, Big Boy Mfg. Co. v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 540, 547-48, C.D. 3950 (1969). The protest is overruled, and judgment will be entered to that effect. (C.D. 4207) EATON MANUFACTURING Co. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Transportation equipment (Marine engines and outdrives) JURISDICTION DEFECTS-OUTDRIVES AS SINGLE ENTITIES RESIDUAL CLASSIFICATION OF MACHINES Marine engines and outdrives exported from Sweden were classified in liquidation either as entireties under TSUS item 696.15 (parts of pleasure boats), or as separate entities under said tariff provision in the case of outdrives imported without engines and under TSUS item 660.44 (internal combustion engines) in the case of engines imported without outdrives. It is claimed by the importer that the merchandise is classifiable as separate entities, that the engines should be classified under item 660.44, and that the outdrives should be classified either under item 680.45 (speed changers) or under the basket provision for machines in item 678.50. Protests covering both engines and outdrives as entireties describe these articles as "machine parts," and in view of headnote 3 of part 4 of schedule 6 and the various claims advanced for classification under provisions dealing with machines, the court is unable to determine which of the two articles here involved is intended to be covered by said description, or even if both articles are intended to be covered thereby. Also one protest, covering both engines and outdrives as separate entities, presents a solitary claim for classification of the outdrives as "engine parts" under a headnote providing only for classification of "machine parts." These protests are dismissed for legal insufficiency or for lack of jurisdiction. The evidence establishes that the outdrives are interchangeable in use with any number of different engines delivering up to medium horsepower, that the outdrives are sold to domestic boat manufacturers following importation and that 90 per cent of them are used in the manufacture of pleasure boats. The evidence also establishes that in operation the outdrives transmit power from the engine situated in the stern section of a boat horizontally through the transom which supports the outdrive, then vertically down a drive shaft, and then horizontally again along a propeller shaft, and that the function of the outdrive clutch is only to engage and disengage the gears to permit shifting to and from reverse gear. Held, the outdrives are not parts of pleasure boats within the contemplation of item 696.15 because they are not parts of foreignbuilt pleasure boats imported by or for sale to a resident of the United States; are not speed changers within the meaning of item 680.45 because their function is to transmit engine power to the propeller shaft and not to change the speed of any mechanism they drive; but are machines not specially provided for within the meaning of item 678.50, since they are machines which cannot find classification elsewhere within the provisions for machines. United States Customs Court, Third Division Protests 65/13083, 67/17604, 67/70250 (A), 68/46572, 67/11820, 68/31959, 67/49180, and 67/69511 against the decisions of the collector of customs at the ports of Seattle and New York [65/13083, 67/17604, 67/70250 (A) and 68/46572 dismissed.] [67/11820, 68/31959, 67/49180 and 67/69511 judgment for plaintiffs.] (Decided April 26, 1971) Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt (M. Barry Levy of counsel) for the plaintiffs. L. Patrick Gray, III, Assistant Attorney General (Robert Blanc, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before RICHARDSON and LANDIS, Judges RICHARDSON, Judge: The ultimate question here presented for our determination in eight (8) protest cases which have been consolidated for trial is the proper classification of certain marine engines and outdrives which were manufactured by Volvo Penta, exported from Sweden, and entered at the ports of Seattle and New York. The merchandise of protest 65/13083, entered at Seattle under entry 19511, consists of marine engines and outdrives which were appraised as separate entities and then classified in liquidation as such under TSUS items 660.44 (internal combustion engines) and 696.15 (parts of yachts or pleasure boats), respectively. It is claimed in the protest that the outdrives should be classified as an entirety with the marine engines under TSUS item 660.44 by reason of headnote 3 of part 4 of schedule 6. Said headnote 3 reads: An electric motor or other power unit imported with a machine is classifiable with such machine as an entirety if fitted thereto when imported, or, if the machine or its framework is designed to receive the power unit, or if the shipment includes a common base designed to receive both the power unit and the machine. The merchandise of protests 67/17604, 67/70250 (A) and 68/46572, entered at New York under entries 958584, 928462, and 993755, respectively, also consists of marine engines and outdrives. However, the merchandise of these entries was appraised as entireties and classified in liquidation as such under TSUS item 696.15 as parts of pleasure boats. In protest 67/17604 it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof. In protest 67/ 70250 (A) it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof, or as an entirety with the marine engines under TSUS item 660.44 by reason of said headnote 3. And in protest 68/46572, it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 660.44 or under TSUS item 678.50. Protests 67/11820, 68/31959, 67/49180, and 67/69511 involve entries of outdrives made at the port of New York which were classified in liquidation under TSUS item 696.15 as parts of pleasure boats. In protest 67/11820, covering entry 741096, it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof. In protest 68/31959, covering entry 1088000, it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "ENGINES AND MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 660.44 as an entirety perforce of said headnote 3, or under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof. No engines were imported under this entry, however. In protest 67/49180, covering entries 1073656 and 939936, it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof. In protest 67/69511, covering entry 885877, it is claimed that the merchandise, described as "MACHINE PARTS," should be classified under TSUS item 678.50 as machines not specially provided for and parts thereof, or under TSUS item 660.44 as entireties with the marine engines as internal combustion engines by reason of said headnote 3. No engines were imported under this entry either. At the time of trial most of the aforementioned protests were the subject of motions to amend which had not been acted upon by this division of the court. In protest 65/13083 plaintiff seeks to amend the protest to add an alternative claim that the "merchandise" should be classified under TSUS item 680.45 (fixed ratio speed changers and parts thereof). And the same amendment is sought with respect to protests 67/70250 (A), 68/46572, and 68/31959. In protest 67/17604 plaintiff seeks to amend the protest to add the alternative claims that the "merchandise" should be classified under TSUS item 680.45 or under TSUS item 660.44. The same amendments are sought with respect to protest 67/11820. No attempt is made by plaintiff to amend the claims set forth in protests 67/49180 and 67/69511. At the trial counsel for the plaintiffs stated the plaintiffs' position herein as follows (R. 3): Plaintiffs claims that the imported articles are not entireties, and that the engines are properly dutiable as such, under Item 660.44, T.S.U.S.; and that the outdrives are properly dutiable as fixed ratio speed changers, provided for in Item 680.45, T.S.U.S., or as machines, not specially provided for, under Item 678.50, T.S.U.S. And the foregoing statement of position is immediately followed by the following statement of counsel for the plaintiffs (R. 3–4) : 441-579-72-20 |