Baker, Lyman & Co. v. United States

24 Cust. Ct. 113, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1453
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 6, 1950
DocketC. D. 1218
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 Cust. Ct. 113 (Baker, Lyman & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker, Lyman & Co. v. United States, 24 Cust. Ct. 113, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1453 (cusc 1950).

Opinion

Foed, Judge:

The three protests listed above present for decision the question of the proper classification of certain imported merchandise described on the invoice as “Davis’s Az. Tables” or some modification of those words. This merchandise was classified as charts and duty was levied thereon at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1410 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom, 74 Treas. Dec. 253, T. D. 49753. Plaintiff claims said merchandise to be properly dutiable at only 7}{ per centum ad valorem under said paragraph 1410, as modified by the above-cited trade agreement, as bound books of bona fide foreign authorship.

Also included on the invoices before us are a number of copies of “Burdwood’s Az. Tables” and “Davis’s Star Tables,” which items were classified as books of bona fide foreign authorship, and duty was [114]*114levied on these items at the rate of 7}í per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1410 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom, T. D. 49753. As to these latter items no contention is made by the plaintiff, but its claim is specifically limited to the merchandise which was assessed with duty at 20 per centum, as set out above.

On motion of counsel for the plaintiff at the trial the following exhibits were admitted in evidence:

Copy of Davis’s Star Azimuth Tables_Exhibit 1
Copy of Davis’s Tables, Revised Edition (Davis. 1) _ _ Exhibit 2
Copy of Burdwood’s Tables, 2nd Edition (Davis. 2)_Exhibit 3
Copy of H. O. No. 71, Azimuths of the Sun and other Celestial Bodies-Illustrative Exhibit A

Plaintiff called as its first witness the president of the importing corporation, who stated that his company was incorporated in March 1932, and that prior to that he was connected with the New Orleans branch of John E. Hand & Sons Co.; that his company handles nautical instruments such as compasses, sextants, azimuth mirrors, charts and books, and all instruments of navigation, and that as manager of John E. Hand & Sons Co. and Baker, Lyman & Co., Inc., he had been handling this line of merchandise since 1920.

The witness also testified that exhibit 2 is sold principally to ship owners and is used by navigating officers of vessels in connection with, and for the correction of, the compass; that he had worked as a compass adjuster for 20 years; that compass adjusting consists of correcting the compass for the attraction that the ship itself has for it, for magnetic material of the ship affects a compass and distorts it from its true direction; and that this is done with an azimuth instrument of some sort on the ship’s compass. “We compare that with the true bearing as given in the Davis or Burdwood tables. If there is not an agreement, the compass is in error.” The error is then corrected by the use of permanent magnets or various magnetic elements. Burdwood’s tables and Davis’s tables have the same matter for different latitudes, Davis’s taking from the equator to 30 degrees, and Burdwood’s from 30 degrees to 64 degrees. As to exhibit 1, Davis’s Star Azimuth Tables, the witness stated that it is different from the other exhibits in the respect that it is for higher declinations, and explained that declination is celestial latitude, and that that is found from the tables, meaning the tables in the exhibits before the court. The witness also stated that “Except for differences of latitude and declinations, they [meaning all the exhibits herein] are identical. They serve the same purpose; they are in the same form.”

The witness further testified with reference to the composition of exhibit 2 that with his experience he could not write this exhibit because he did not know trigonometry and that it would require some [115]*115one with, a knowledge of trigonometry and a great knowledge of mathematics to compose and author a book of this kind; that in his opinion this book was copyrighted in England because of the notation on the flyleaf “All rights reserved,” and that “means the same to me as copyright in an American book because we handle a great number of-English books and I have never seen anything but this ‘All rights reserved.’ ”

Referring to the identifying characteristics of a chart which differentiate it from a book, the witness stated:

A chart is a map which shows primarily the water and the depths of the water and it shows the aids to navigation. It is only a sheet of paper.

As to the physical characteristics of a chart and exhibits 1, 2, and 3, and illustrative exhibit A, the witness stated: “There is no resemblance whatever”; that a chart shows the features in the various latitudes covered by the chart, whereas these books give the sun’s bearing at different latitudes; “no resemblance to the matter given in charts.” And finally the witness stated that he was familiar with the work, Lecky’s Wrinkles Practical Navigation, published in 1881, in which he makes reference to these tables by Burdwood and Davis, and that he considered that work an authority on the subject.

The second witness, whose testimony was offered by counsel for the plaintiff, stated that he had been in the marine business practically all his life; that he was the author of a number of books and tables of navigation.

I have approximately 100 articles on navigation published in various boating magazines, here and in England, and I have a book of navigation wrinkles for motorboats, which was the text book used in most of the navy establishments for teaching navigation to small boat crews; vice-president of Higgins Industries. I was in charge of the school for boat operators which taught navigation to some 30,000 men of the armed forces — the Navy, Coast Guard, and on Army boats; was the only commercial school that was in existence before we entered the war, and still in existence after we entered the war.
* * * * * *
I was one of the charter members and on the first board of directors of the Institute of Navigation, an organization formed about 2 years ago to coordinate navigation with the air lines; the Army, Navy, Coast Guard and surface vessels.

With reference to the tables which he had authored, the witness stated:

* * * That was a table compiled at the request of the United States Navy whereby a second-class fireman in a lifeboat or a raft could obtain his position without previous instructions within 15 minutes and new tables that had never been devised before had to be constructed for use on our P. T. boats.

The witness stated that he became familiar with exhibit 2, Davis’s Tables, when he went to Capta,in Howard Paterson’s New York Nautical College, back about 1910 or 1911, by using it in solving prob[116]*116lems of compass correction, because in those days we did not have the navigation tables of Ageton or Driesinstock. Further explaining the reasons for the production and development of the publications represented by the exhibits herein, the witness stated:

Those are all tables that were developed later as marine transportation and speeds increased.

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

Related

Bauer Alphabets, Inc. v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 255 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
R. U. Delapenha & Co. v. United States
36 Cust. Ct. 345 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Simon v. United States
31 Cust. Ct. 53 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
Ignaz Strauss & Co. v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 280 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Cust. Ct. 113, 1950 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-lyman-co-v-united-states-cusc-1950.