Home/U.S. Customs Court/Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States

Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States

44 Cust. Ct. 257, 188 F. Supp. 50, 1960 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 24
United States Customs Court·Decided June 9, 1960·No. C.D. 2185·Published

Opinions

Mollison, Judge:

The plaintiff in this case imported into the United States certain women’s leather gloves, under 12 inches in. length, unlined, and not trimmed with fur, partly hand and partly machine seamed, and not overseamed, on which the collector took duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1532(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 52739.

The protest claim is for duty at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1532(a), sufra, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802. It is the plaintiff’s contention that; the duty increase provided by the Torquay protocol and the Presidential proclamation relating thereto on leather gloves of the kind)' here involved was a nullity because a condition precedent to the lawful negotiation of a trade agreement with respect to such duty was. not complied with. The condition precedent referred to is that required by section 4 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1354), and paragraph 5 of Executive Order No. 10082 (14 F.K,. 6105), with respect to the giving of reasonable public notice to interested parties of an opportunity to present their views to the Committee for Keciprocity Information, the agency designated by the President to receive such views, concerning the articles or products as to which it was proposed to conduct trade agreement negotiations.

An account of the background of the situation presented by the present case may be helpful in understanding the matter.

As originally enacted, paragraph 1532(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 provided for certain duties in addition to the basic duties therein' prescribed on gloves “When machine seamed, otherwise than over-seamed,” and “when seamed by hand.” The duties with respect to women’s gloves, when seamed by hand, were reduced by the Presidential proclamation relating to the French Trade Agreement, T.D. 48316, and those with respect to gloves, when machine seamed, were reduced by the Presidential proclamation relating to the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement, T.D. 49458.

Litigation arose as to the status of gloves, partly seamed by hand and partly machine seamed, and, in the case of United States v. Aris [259]*259Gloves, Inc., 31 C.C.P.A. 169, C.A.D. 268, it was held that if a glove had not first been made into a completed glove by one or the other types of seaming, i.e., where part of the seaming which made the article into a glove was by hand and the other part was by machine, the provisions of neither trade agreement modification applied, and snch gloves were held to be properly classifiable under the provisions in paragraph 1532(a), supra, as unmodified, and dutiable only according to the basic duty applicable thereto, without the additional duties imposed by reason of hand or machine seaming.

Although there were some changes in language and rates, essentially the same tariff situation as to women’s leather gloves, seamed partly by hand and partly by machine, obtained upon the proclamation by the President relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802, and the provisions of paragraph 1532(a), as modified by that proclamation under which the plaintiff in this case claims, read as follows:

BecKDecPqxf22cb9Can0GAAsfJypJQx6wEOEAAjmHiQKh8gLkJSrbtGcSB6xmie8DVFsDHJWh0GhrUZmp1ng

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States, 44 Cust. Ct. 257, 188 F. Supp. 50, 1960 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 24 (cusc 1960).

44 Cust. Ct. 257 (Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

May v. Hansen
295 N.W. 429 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1940)
Sterling Manufacturing Co. v. Hough
68 N.W. 1019 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
United States v. Aris Gloves, Inc.
31 C.C.P.A. 169 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1944)
Nestle's Food Co. v. United States
16 Ct. Cust. 451 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
German-American National Bank v. Martin
115 N.E. 721 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1917)
Twitchell v. Glenwood-Inglewood Co.
155 N.W. 621 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States
38 Cust. Ct. 131 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)