Hoyt v. United States

6 Cust. Ct. 357, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 15, 1941
DocketC. D. 495
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Cust. Ct. 357 (Hoyt 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
Hoyt v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 357, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83 (cusc 1941).

Opinion

Dallinger, Judge:

This is a suit against the United States, arising at the port of San Francisco, brought to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted on a particular [358]*358importation described in the invoice as printing and embossing cylinders. Duty was levied thereon at the rate of 60 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 395 of the Tariff Act of 1930 which reads as follows:

Par: 395. Print rollers, of whatever material composed, with raised patterns of brass or brass and felt, finished or unfinished, used for printing, stamping, or cutting designs, $5 each and 72 per centum ad valorem; embossing rollers of steel or other metal, 30 per centum ad valorem; print blocks, and print rollers not specially provided for, of whatever material composed, used for printing, stamping, or cutting designs, 60 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That the foregoing rates shall apply whether or not the articles are imported separately, or as parts of machines.

It is claimed that said articles are properly dutiable at but 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of said act as parts of printing machinery.

The plaintiffs offered in evidence the testimony of a single witness, John T. Raisin, president of the J. T. Raisin Corporation, the ultimate consignee and actual importer herein, who testified in part as follows:

Q. Will you examine the invoice and state if you are familiar with the merchandise invoiced as cylinder for mounting paper counter-pressure surfaces, valued at 848 marks; also an embossing cylinder valued at 128 marks. ' * * * — A. I am.
Q. Would you describe these two items I read to you? — A. These are steel rollers to which are attached embossing dies.
Q. Upon what type of machine is it, if any? — A. On a rotary printing press.
Q. How is it attached to it, will you state? — A. We use a curved brass die, which is attached by screws to the curved cylinder.
Q. Now, will you describe more fully how the machine to which these are attached operates; what it does? — A. This machine prints three colors and embosses, all in-the one operation.
Q. What do you need to print with those things, if anything? — A. If you want to print you have to attach a printing plate, or if you want to emboss, you attach an embossing die. The rollers do not do anything.
Q. Can that machine operate without the rollers? — A. No, sir. '
Q. You state that this machine was all metal? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it composed of any other material? — A. No, sir.

On cross-examination the witness testified in part as follows:

X Q. Do you know the difference between a print roller and an embossing roller? — A. These won’t print.
Judge Dallinger. You have to put something else on them?
The Witness. You have to put something else on them.
By Mr. Weil.
X Q. No printing roller will print unless it is attached to a machine, will it? Take the print roller itself, it won’t print? — A. It will if it has a design made on it. These are all smpoth rollers that we put the embossing plate on. You can have a roller with the engraving on it.
Judge Dallinger. You say that these did not have anything on them?
The Witness. No, sir.
[359]*359By Mr. Weil.
X Q. Did you ever see a print roller with, a design on it? — A. Yes, sir.
X Q. Is it a print roller? — A. It will print. I have seen them.
X Q. Do you know the difference between a print roller and an embossing roller? — A. These are not either.
X Q. What is the difference? — A. An embossing roller is made with heavier bearings. In printing you use a very light impression.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cust. Ct. 357, 1941 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-united-states-cusc-1941.