Camera Specialty Co. v. United States

34 Cust. Ct. 27, 146 F. Supp. 473, 1955 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1955
DocketC. D. 1672
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 Cust. Ct. 27 (Camera Specialty 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
Camera Specialty Co. v. United States, 34 Cust. Ct. 27, 146 F. Supp. 473, 1955 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3 (cusc 1955).

Opinion

Wilson, Judge:

It was stipulated in this case between the Government and the plaintiffs that the merchandise here involved consists of photo lenses and lens parts, originally manufactured in the Russian-occupied Zone of Germany; that, after said goods had been imported into the United States directly from that zone and had had clearance through United States customs, the lenses and lens parts in question were exported to the Western Zone of Germany for repair and alteration to fit them for use.

It was further stipulated between the parties that, upon reimportation of the involved goods from the Western Zone of Germany into the United States, duty on the cost of the repairs made, in accordance with paragraph 1615 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, was assessed under paragraph 228 (b) at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem, as provided for in said paragraph, and that the reimported goods were denied the benefit of the reduced rate of duty at 25 per centum ad valorem, as provided for in paragraph 228 (b), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802. The reduced rate of duty was refused by reason of the provisions of a Presidential proclamation, T. D. 52788, dated August 1, 1951, wherein merchandise shipped directly or indirectly from the Russian-occupied Zone of Germany was excepted from the benefits accruing from the reduced rates or concessions provided for in any trade agreement.

The pertinent parts of the Presidential proclamation in question, T. D. 52788, are as follows:

Whereas sections 5 and 11 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 (Public Law 50, 82d Congress) provide as follows:
“Sec. 5. As soon as practicable, the President shall take such action as is necessary to suspend, withdraw or prevent the application of any reduction in any rate of duty, or binding of any existing customs or excise treatment, or other concession contained in any trade agreement entered into under authority of section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and extended, to imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to imports from any nation or area dominated or controlled by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement.”
* ‡ Hí * * % *
Now, therefore, I, Harrt S. Truman, President of the United States of America, * * * do proclaim:
Part I
That the application of reduced rates of duty * * * established pursuant to trade agreements * * * shall be suspended with respect to imports from such nations and areas referred to in section 5 as may be specified in any notification [29]*29pursuant to this part of this proclamation given by the President to the Secretary of the Treasury * * *.

In a covering letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, the President instructed that officer that such suspension as to reduced rates of duty shall be applicable with respect to imports, among others, from “The Soviet Zone of Germany and the Soviet Sector of Berlin,” which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after the close of business August 31, 1951. The importation here under consideration was made on October 31, 1951.

Admittedly, any importations from the Russian-occupied Zone of Germany are not entitled to the benefits of the trade agreement, while those originating in the Western Zone of Germany are properly dutiable under the lower rate, as provided in the agreement in question.

The sole issue presented in this case is whether the lenses and lens parts, as they were imported in their improved condition from the Western Zone of Germany to the United States, were imports, directly or indirectly, from the Russian Zone of Germany, or whether they were direct imports from the Western German Zone.

The question of duty upon the lenses and lens parts, as originally imported from the Russian Zone to the United States and cleared through the United States customs, is not here involved. The assessment here under review is that made on the improved lenses and lens parts as they were shipped back to the United States from the Western Zone of Germany.

Plaintiffs stated the issue in another way in their brief in the following manner:

The only issue, therefore, is whether or not the repairs on these lenses and lens parts fall within the following descriptive terms contained in T. D. 52788:
* * * For the purposes of this part the term “imports from such nations and areas” shall mean articles imported directly or indirectly into the United States from nations or areas specified in an effective notification, but shall not in any case include articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other nation or area.

It is clear from the foregoing statement from the proclamation under consideration that its provisions apply only to articles imported directly or indirectly into the United States from the excepted nations or areas and not in any case to goods grown, produced, or manufactured in any other area or nation.

Paragraph 228 (b). Tariff Act of 1930, provides as follows:

(b) Azimuth mirrors, parabolic or mangin mirrors for searchlight reflectors, mirrors for optical, dental, or surgical purposes, photographic or projection lenses, sextants, octants, opera or field glasses (not prism binoculars), telescopes, microscopes, all optical instruments, frames and mountings therefor, and parts of any of the foregoing; all the foregoing, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, 45 per centum ad valorem.

[30]*30Paragraph 228 (b), as modified by T. D. 51802, with respect to the merchandise under consideration, provides:

Tariff Act of 1930, paragraph 228 (b) Description of Products Photographic lenses, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for_ Rate of Duty 25% ad val.

Paragraph 1615 (g), as amended by section 35 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (T. D. 49646) and which covers goods exported from the United States for repairs or alterations and then reimported, reads as follows:

Any article exported from the United States for repairs or alterations may be returned upon the payment of a duty upon the value of the repairs or alterations at the rate or rates which would apply to the article itself in its repaired or altered condition if not within the purview of this subparagraph.

When originally imported into the United States, the merchandise in question admittedly came from the Russian Zone of Germany and, as such, was on the nonfavored list. However, these goods passed through the United States customs and were received into the regular commerce of this country. They thereby became part of the goods belonging to the citizens of this nation and, when sent to the Western Zone of Germany for repairs, occupied the same status as they would had they been originally produced in the United States. When reimported into the United States, the merchandise came from a country admittedly entitled to the benefits of the reduced rates, as provided under the provisions of paragraph 228 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802.

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

Related

Couture Fabrics, Ltd. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 369 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
United States v. Hercules Antiques
44 C.C.P.A. 209 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)
Hercules Antiques v. United States
36 Cust. Ct. 428 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Camera Specialty Co. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 304 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Cust. Ct. 27, 146 F. Supp. 473, 1955 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camera-specialty-co-v-united-states-cusc-1955.