Nor does Castelazo & Associates v. United States, 61 Cust. 391, C.D. 3639, 294 F. Supp. 81 (1968), support defendant's position. That case involved the classification of an article which combined the functions of a shovel and a pick in a manner in which neither function was dominant. The importer claimed that the article was classifiable as a shovel. The court, however, sustained the classification as articles of base metal, not specially provided for, on the basis that it was "both a shovel and a pick, each performing independently separate and different jobs." Id. at 394. Here, on the other hand, the import performs the primary function of a conventional reel-to store and project film; the function of the container-to protect the film-is merely auxiliary to this primary function.

Relevant so far as our present problem is concerned is United-Carr Fastener Corporation v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 347, C.D. 2648 (1966), aff'd 54 CCPA 89, C.A.D. 913 (1967). That case involved "TEE NUTS” which consisted of a threaded barrel for receiving and holding a bolt, a flange which performed the load-bearing function of a washer and served as a base for prongs, and prongs designed to be driven into wooden members as a fastening means. The articles were classified under paragraph 330 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “[n]uts *** of *** iron or steel." The importer claimed they were properly classifiable as articles of metal, not specially provided for, contending that the article was a combination one which possessed features substantially in excess of those possessed by a nut, and was thus more than a nut. The court disagreed and held that the “TEE NUT" was a species of nut and thus within the ambit of the provisions therefor on the rationale that it was a labor and timesaving device which joined objects together to replace an older, obsolete method of doing the same thing. Thus, in the court's view, the article was designed as a faster, more efficient method of joining components together. The court added that "[t]he fact that a function, previously performed by a washer, which at best is but auxiliary when associated in use with a nut, was eliminated in this evolutionary process, contributed to the improvement of, rather than a change in identity of the article as a nut ** *.” 56 Cust. Ct. at 352-53. In the present case, similarly, the autoload cartridge evolved as a faster and more efficient method than conventional film reels for storing and projecting microfilm.

Likewise relevant is New York Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 283, C.D. 3746, 305 F. Supp. 25 (1969), aff'd 58 CCPA 53, C.A.D. 1004 (1970), which involved poodle dog radios that were assessed as toy figures of animate objects and were claimed by the importer to be classifiable as radios or, alternatively, as electrical articles not specially provided for. The court held that the articles were more than toy figures of animate objects, but were not more than radios upon various grounds, including the fact that "the real benefits to be

obtained from the use of the imported poodle dog radios are the same as those which are obtained from any other radio." 62 Cust. Ct. at 289. Here, too, the real benefits to be obtained from the imported autoload cartridge are essentially the same as those obtained by two film reels and a reel can. The point is that articles are classified on the basis of their primary design, construction and function even though they are capable of performing other auxiliary or incidental operations. E.g., Schick X-Ray Co., Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 430, C.D. 4013 (1970); Astra Trading Corp. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 555, C.D. 2703 (1966). To paraphrase what we said in Schick X-Ray, "[h]ere*** *** the imported *** [article] does more than its forerunners and was designed to solve certain problems or demands of the particular function it serves. But its primary function is still the same as any other * * * [film reel—to store and project microfilm]. Thus *** the * * * [import] is not a new article of commerce but rather a more complex and improved *** [version] than its predecessors.” 64 Cust. Ct. at 436.

The further fact pointed out by defendant that the imported articles are known by the trade name "autoload cartridge" does not in any way take them out of the common meaning of film reels. There has been no attempt by either side to establish a commercial designation for the term "film reels." Therefore, the common meaning of the term is controlling. See Heads & Threads, etc. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 308, C.D. 3374, 282 F. Supp. 484 (1968).

This brings us to defendant's alternative claim that the importations are classifiable as parts of photographic film viewers under item 722.55. We need not consider whether the articles fall within this provision for even if they do, they would still be classifiable under item. 722.80 as photographic film reels by virtue of General Headnote 10 (ij) which (as set out previously) provides that "a provision for 'parts' of an article covers a product solely or chiefly used as a part of such article, but does prevail over a specific provision for such part." The protest is sustained. Judgment will issue accordingly.

(C.D. 4216)

GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES

American goods returned-Gold wire

ASSEMBLED ARTICLES-AMERICAN COMPONENT-LOSS OF IDENTITY Where the importer protests the classification of transistors exported from Taiwan on the ground that an allowance in duties pursuant to TSUS item 807.00 should have been made as to gold wire which was exported from the United States on spools and

used in the assembly of the transistors in Taiwan, and the evidence shows that the wire is applied directly from the spool to one of three metal leads (twice) and cut from the spool and the three leads are inserted into the ceramic body of the transistor where the cut ends of the gold wire are then affixed to the other two metal leads, thus completing the electrical connection between the leads, and the leads as wired are then covered and sealed with epoxy for protection purposes, it is

Held, exemption from duty under item 807.00 is properly disallowed for non-compliance with subdivision (b) thereof since the wire for which duty exemption is claimed is not readily identifiable at the time of importation by reason of its concealment under the epoxy covering, and therefore, there is a loss of physical identity of the American component in the assembled article within the prohibition of the statute.

United States Customs Court, Third Division

Protests 69/32326 and 69/32727 against the decision of the regional commissioner of customs at the port of New York

[Overruled in part; restored to calendar in part.]

(Decided May 12, 1971)

William R. Shapiro; Lincoln & Stewart, associate counsel (Eugene L. Stewart of counsel); for the plaintiff.

L. Patrick Gray, III, Assistant Attorney General (Robert Blanc, trial attorney), for the defendant.

Before RICHARDSON and LANDIS, Judges

RICHARDSON, Judge: The merchandise of these two protests which were consolidated for trial consists of silvered mica, silvered mica. plates, backing mica and tin foil of capacitors and gold wire of transistors under protest 69/32326, and tape, jumpers and leads of yokes, silvered mica, tin foil and backing mica of capacitors, and gold wire of transistors under protest 69/32727. The merchandise was exported from Taiwan, entered at the port of New York, and classified in liquidation under various provisions of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

At the trial, held on January 20, 1970, claims under protest 69/32326 concerning the capacitors were formally abandoned by plaintiff pursuant to notice previously given by counsel. However, similar claims under protest 69/32727 concerning capacitors were not formally abandoned although notice of intention to abandon said claims had previously been given by plaintiff's counsel with respect to these claims also. Inasmuch as plaintiff's counsel did not present any evidence at the trial in support of plaintiff's claims as to the capacitors, we regard

counsel's failure to formally abandon said claims as being a mere oversight, and accordingly, we deem the claims under protest 69/32727 as to capacitors as having been abandoned by plaintiff also.

With respect to the yokes covered by protest 69/32727, plaintiff's counsel sought to have the court's disposition as to said articles governed by this court's decision concerning such articles in the case of General Instrument Corporation v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 648, C.D. 4151, which was tried on April 23 and 24, 1969, and decided on December 21, 1970. At the time of the trial of the instant protests the court had fully intended to be able to decide the issue of yokes in C.D. 4151, then awaiting decision, on the merits; and with that understanding and the consent of counsel, it was agreed that the disposition of yokes in C.D. 4151 would govern the disposition of yokes under protest 69/32727. However, as it developed C.D. 4151 was disposed of on jurisdictional grounds adverse to the plaintiff here, and the court never reached the merits of the claims as to yokes. Consequently, in C.D. 4151 protests 68/26411 and 68/26412 covering yokes were restored to the calendar for retrial. The parties have not noticed these protests for trial. Hence, in all fairness to the plaintiff here, and regardless of the court's disposition of the sole remaining issue involving transistors, protest 69/32727 will have to remain open so as to give plaintiff an opportunity to try or otherwise dispose of its claims as to the yokes.

We decide today only the issue as to transistors, concerning which there has been a plenary trial and full submission of briefs.

The transistors in question, identified on the invoices only in terms of their component parts, were classified in liquidation under the provision for transistors in item 687.60 of the tariff schedules at the duty rate of 1212 per centum ad valorem. It is claimed by plaintiff that an allowance in duties pursuant to item 807.00 or the tariff schedules should be made for certain gold wire which is incorporated in the transistors. The gold wire provides the electrical connection between the three metal leads of the transistor at bar which, according to the evidence, is known as the T018 epoxy transistor. It is said that this transistor finds use in almost any form of electronic apparatus from a television receiver through a computer, medical instruments, radar sets, military equipment, and electronic organs. Item 807.00, as amended by Public Law 89-241 (section 85, Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act), provides for the payment of duty upon the full value of imported articles less the cost or value of products of the United States, as to:

Articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the product of the United States, which (a) were exported, in condition ready for assembly without further fabri

cation, for the purpose of such assembly and return to the United States, (b) have not lost their physical identity in such articles by change in form, shape, or otherwise, and (c) have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process such as cleaning, lubrication, and painting.

It is agreed by the parties that the wire in question is a fabricated component, the product of the United States. And uncontroverted testimonial, documentary, and physical evidence adduced by plaintiff in the record establishes the following: (a) that the wire in issue is manufactured in this country especially for transistor use and is purchased here by plaintiff on spools for such use; (b) that said wire is exported on the spools to plaintiff's plant in Taiwan; (c) that in plaintiff's Taiwan plant said wire is taken directly off the spool while in continuous, unbroken form, and, with the aid of machinery and other apparatus operated and handled by plant workers, said wire is applied and bonded to one of two aluminum strips which are affixed to a silicon chip or die pad which is in turn bonded to the head of a metal lead termed a "clubhead" lead and then cut from the spool to a predetermined length; (d) that in the same fashion a second length of said wire is taken from the spool and bonded to the same clubhead lead on the other end of the die pad to which is affixed the other aluminum strip and then cut to the same length as the first wire; (e) that the clubhead lead with the two gold wires attached, together with two "nailhead" leads, are then inserted and positioned in a ceramic bead constituting the body or housing of the transistor where the free ends of the gold wires are located and welded to the top of the nailhead leads, thus completing the electrical connections between the metal leads (clubhead and nailhead); that the top of the ceramic bead is then covered and sealed with a blob of epoxy to protect the unit from dirt and handling; and (f) that although a small number of these transistors are produced in the United States by plaintiff for control purposes, plaintiff has most of these transistors manufactured in Taiwan so as to be competitive, in terms of cheaper labor costs, in the marketing of this product.

The foregoing constitutes the salient evidence bearing upon the issue of duty exemption provided for in item 807.00. At the outset we wish to state that we do not think it is necessary for us to determine in this whether the supplementary explanatory material relating to item 807.00 which is found on page 103 of the Seventh Supplemental Report of the Tariff Commission on the Tariff Classification Study [stating that U.S. wire on spools is not a finished component] is applicable. This explanatory material was written by the Tariff Commission as