Home/U.S. Customs Court/Helbros Watch Co. Emil Leichter v. United States

Helbros Watch Co. Emil Leichter v. United States

22 Cust. Ct. 95, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1230
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1949
DocketC. D. 1166
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 Cust. Ct. 95 (Helbros Watch Co. Emil Leichter 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
Helbros Watch Co. Emil Leichter v. United States, 22 Cust. Ct. 95, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1230 (cusc 1949).

Opinion

Lawrence, Judge;

Imported watch movements are subject to the imposition of compound rates of duty which are provided for in paragraph 367 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement between the United States and Switzerland, effective February

[96]*9615, 1936 (69 Treas. Dec. 74, T. D. 48093). We are ¿ere concerned only with the base rate specified in said paragraph 367 (a) (1) which, insofar as it is here pertinent, reads as follows:

367 (a) Watch movements, and time-keeping, time-measuring, or time-indicating mechanisms, devices, and instruments, whether or not designed to be worn or carried on or about the person, all the foregoing, if less than 1.77 inches wide and not having more than 17 jewels, whether or not in cases, containers, or housings:

(1) If more than 1 inch wide_1_$0.90 each .

If more than %o of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide_$1.20 eac-6.

If more than %o of 1 inch but not more than %_o of 1 inch wide.. $1.36 each. If %o of 1 inch or less wide_$1.80 each.

* * * * * jfc

The rate of such duty depends upon the width of the movement and subdivision (h) of said paragraph 367 defines the method by which the width shall be ascertained as follows:

For the purposes of this paragraph the width of any movement * * * shal be the shortest surface dimension through the center of the pillar or bottom plate, or its equivalent, not including in the measurement any portion not essential to the functioning of the movement, * * * [Italics added.]

The problem which confronts us here is primarily the proper interpretation to be given to the italicized words above quoted.

The same controversial language formed the basic issue in United States v. Invicta Seeland, Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 300, T. D. 49397, which will be fully discussed infra, and hereafter will be referred to as the Invicta case. The present controversy is to a degree a retrial of that case which plaintiffs seek to distinguish upon a new record.

Two protests have been consolidated for trial and counsel have displayed unusual diligence, industry, and research in the preparation, trial, and briefing of the subject. A great deal of time of the court, counsel, and litigants was abbreviated through the successful efforts of counsel in entering into an agreed statement of facts before trial and submitting it at the hearing in the form of a stipulation (exhibit A).

In addition, plaintiffs introduced the testimony of seven witnesses, all of whom were well-informed upon the matters about which they were interrogated. None was introduced by the defendant.

Two importations of watch movements are before us. Protest 110594-K relates to a so-called 11% ligne round watch movement, represented by the movement in exhibit 1 and illustrated by the enlarged photograph in evidence as exhibit 1-B. The pillar or bottom plate is represented by exhibit 1-A. (The word “ligne” is a French word used in the Swiss watch industry as a unit of measure having a corresponding inch measurement in the United States.)

[0]

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

Related

General Electric Co. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 63 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
United States v. Helbros Watch Co.
38 C.C.P.A. 1 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Cust. Ct. 95, 1949 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helbros-watch-co-emil-leichter-v-united-states-cusc-1949.