Gehrig v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 344, 293 F. Supp. 433, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2125
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 26, 1968
DocketC.D. 3628
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 Cust. Ct. 344 (Gehrig 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
Gehrig v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 344, 293 F. Supp. 433, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2125 (cusc 1968).

Opinion

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of “Hydrodist” master and remote electronic distance measuring instruments, Model MRB2. They were imported from South Africa and entered at the port of New York on February 14, 1962. Duty was assessed at 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 360 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with Switzerland, 90 Treas. Dec. 174, T.D. 53832, as surveying instruments and parts thereof, in chief value of metal. Various claims are made in the protest but those presently relied on are that the articles are dutiable at 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 353 of said tariff act, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, as radio apparatus, instruments, and devices, or at 15 per centum ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, as articles suitable for producing, rectifying, modifying, controlling, or distributing electrical energy.

The pertinent provisions of said tariff act, as modified, are as follows:

Paragraph 360, as modified by T.D. 53832:

Surveying instruments and parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for_ 35% ad val.

Paragraph 353, as modified by T.D. 52739:

Electrical signaling, radio, welding, and ignition apparatus, instruments (other than laboratory), and devices, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for (not including television apparatus, instruments, or devices) _ 12%% ad val.

[346]*346Paragraph 358, as modified by T.D. 51802:

Articles suitable for producing, rectifying, modifying, controlling, or distributing electrical energy, and articles having, as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, fans, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, ranges, washing machines, refrigerators, and signs; all the foregoing (not including electrical wiring apparatus, instruments, and devices), finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:

íjí
Other articles (except machines for determining the strength of materials or articles in tension, compression, torsion, or sheer; flashlights; batteries; vacuum cleaners; and internal-combustion engines) _ 15% ad val.

Plaintiff called one witness at the trial and introduced three exhibits. Defendant called no witnesses but introduced one exhibit. It was stipulated that the Hydrodist Model MRB2 was wholly or in chief value of metal.

Plaintiff’s witness was Andrew Stephen Morrison, an electronics engineer, who at the time of the trial was chief engineer at the Tel-lurometer Division of Plessey, Incorported, at Farmingdale, 1ST.Y. That division manufactures electronic equipment under contract to the United States Army and services and distributes electronic instruments which it manufactures and also those manufactured by the Plessey South Africa Company electronics division in Capetown, producer of the within merchandise. After graduation from high school Mr. Morrison had spent 1 year at Glasgow Wireless College, 3 years in the British Merchant Navy Service, and 2 years in the Boyal Air Force. By part-time study, he received the final certificate in telecommunications engineering from City and Guilds College in London. He later passed the graduateship examination of the Institution of Electronic and Radio Engineers in London. He took post-graduate courses in radar systems engineering, including navigational equipment, digital techniques, and computer technology, receiving a certificate from Chelmsford Technical College in Essex, England.

Between 1960 and 1964 he was employed by the Marconi Company of Chelmsford, doing work on circuit design and system design in radar and allied equipment. In 1964 he joined Plessey, starting work as a project engineer, carrying out systems work, designing circuits, and building models of electronic instruments. He came to the United States in March 1966 to help the company carry out environmental testing and begin production of these instruments. During the course of his work he became familiar with all the equipments [347]*347that Plessey had produced, including the Aerodist system, the Microdistancer and the Hydrodist system.

Mr. Morrison testified that the Tellurometer series of instruments, including the Hydrodist, employ a system developed by Dr. Trevor Lloyd Wadley, for which he obtained a patent in South Africa in 1956 and one in the United States in 1959. A copy of the United States patent was received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1. This system utilizes radio microwaves to transmit measuring information between a master and a remote station. (Patent, exhibit 1; Tellurom-eter Manual, exhibit A; brochures on Hydrodist MKB2, exhibits 2 and 3.) According to Mr. Morrison, it differs from other systems in that it employs secondary radar principles, along with phase measuring techniques of primary and secondary signals. He explained that primary radar uses a transmitter to transmit a pulse energy which travels to a target. The target then reflects part of that energy back to the transmitter, where a receiver is usually stationed. The pulse is amplified and compared with a reference, and a measurement of the transit time of the radio waves can be made and converted into distance. The secondary radar system uses another transmitter-receiver at the target. This transmitter or remote instrument amplifies the signal and retransmits it. It is compared with the originally-transmitted phase information, thus providing a measurement of the transit time of the radio waves which can be translated into distance.

The Hydrodist Model MEB2 consists of master and remote units. Each unit has a dimension of 14 by 10y2 by iy2 inches and weighs approximately 30 pounds, complete with its integral power pack. Both units include a tripod, a 12-volt battery and radio-telephone headgear. The batteries supply the electrical power needed to operate the instruments. Both use Klystron tubes to generate microwaves in radio frequency bands between 2.9 and 3.1 thousand megacycles. These microwaves are used to measure distance and to carry on voice communication between the master and remote operators. The Klystron tubes allow the modulation required. The units contain components which rectify, modify, control, and distribute electrical energy.

To operate the Hydrodist MKB2, the master and remote units are switched on and tuned to each other. The final adjustments are carried out by master and remote control operators discussing how the measurement will begin. For this purpose the radio-telephone headsets, consisting of earphones and microphones are plugged into the instruments. Some 15 minutes is required to prepare the instruments for their measurement function. The operators have to be in voice com[348]*348munication in order to determine exactly how the instruments shall be set up initially and how the measurement shall proceed.

There are various types of read-out or indicating units. In the Hy-drodist system the primary signal is caused to generate time trace or circular time trace an the face of a cathode ray tube, and the return from the remote unit is represented as a bright-up on the trace.

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

Related

Heli-Support, Inc. v. United States
26 Ct. Int'l Trade 352 (Court of International Trade, 2002)
Killian v. Hill
795 S.W.2d 369 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1990)
Lenkurt Electric Co. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 463 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Gallagher & Ascher Co. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 223 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Cust. Ct. 344, 293 F. Supp. 433, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gehrig-v-united-states-cusc-1968.