Laszlo v. United States

1 Cust. Ct. 209, 1938 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 47
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedOctober 17, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1 Cust. Ct. 209 (Laszlo 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
Laszlo v. United States, 1 Cust. Ct. 209, 1938 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 47 (cusc 1938).

Opinion

DallingeR, Judge:

These are suits against the United States, arising at the port of New York, brought to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted on particular importations of air-pistols and so-called pistolets, and parts thereof. Duty was levied thereon at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. It is claimed that the articles are properly dutiable at but 27 K per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of said act as machines and parts thereof not specially provided for.

Exhibits 1 and 2 are samples of the imported' air-pistols and Exhibit 3 of the so-called safety pistolets.

The witness, Stephen E. Laszlo, thus described the mechanism of the air-pistols:

Inside of this housing there is a plunger. On top of the plunger there is. a piece of leather. This one moves inside of it, and compresses air. Behind this [210]*210¡plunger there is a spring. On the side of this holder there is a lever which is here. Then I open the lever here. I compress the spring and then the position •of the plunger changes. It moves from this position to this position.
Q. That is from the front, the muzzle, down to the breech; is that right? — A. That is correct. It moves back to the front. I compress the spring which is in front of it. That is a motion and it gets to a certain position to the end, in this .position. There is a peculiar shape of metal which we call the trigger that hooks in the groove of this metal, this being a piece of small spring here holding it tight, with the result when I open this one it remains so, the spring being compressed ■and the plunger in this position is ready to be released. Then I close this one And then I pull this. I release this mechanism and pull back. When I pull this trigger, this still being in position, it moves rapidly to here so that it springs when "the trigger is pressed.

He further testified that Exhibit 3 is an imitation revolver, except that the muzzle is solid so that a bullet can not pass through it; that the article is so manufactured that only blank cartridges may be •used therein; that when the trigger is pulled back energy is stored in a small spring placed within the handle; that the article operates like a double-action revolver; that when the trigger is pulled the hammer is raised and then released so that the hammer hits the blank cartridge; that the resulting fumes come out on top; and that the article is used in theatricals and for starting purposes.

In support of their contention, counsel for the plaintiff cite four recent cases in which certain devices were held classifiable as machines not specially provided for, to wit: United States v. Guth Stern & Co., Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. 246, T. D. 46777, involving certain devices •for sharpening safety-razor blades; United States v. Adlanco Industrial Products Corp., 21 C. C. P. A. 249, T. D. 46778, covering a mechanism known as a thermoflux which was designed to convert •electric current into a current of extremely high frequency; United States v. Endlein & Schmidt, United Hardware & Tool Co., 22 C. C. P. A. 108, T. D. 47082, involving hand counters or tallying registers; and United States v. L. Oppleman, Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. 168, T. D. 49271, covering certain aneroid barometers. Counsel also cites our rulings in Abstracts 26349, 27530, and 28998, wherein we classified as machines not specially provided for certain hand stapling devices, hand stapling pliers, and hand spraying devices.

On the other hand, counsel for the Government calls our attention to the fact that in the case of United States v. Guth Stern & Co., supra, the appellate court disavowed its intention of holding arbitrarily that the definition of “machine” given in the case of Simon, Buhler & Baumann, Inc. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273, T. D. 37537, “is so rigid and exact in its terms as to include any and all devices and mechanisms that may happen to be literally embraced within it.”

Counsel also cites the case of United States v. Wm. Goldenblum & Co., 18 C. C. P. A. 367, T. D. 44616, wherein it was held that certain [211]*211carpenter’s braces were tools and not machines, the court observing that “obviously, a holding that the involved articles are machines for tariff purposes would result in reducing the definition of machines to an absurdity.”

However, we do not agree with Government counsel that holding the present articles to be machines would reduce that term to an absurdity. The record establishes that the articles are mechanical contrivances which utilize and apply the force of air.

But before classifying the articles as machines, it would seem that some consideration should be given the question whether the imported articles may not be specifically provided for in paragraph 366 of said act as pistols and revolvers. There appears to be nothing in that paragraph which in express terms would preclude the classification of' these articles thereunder as pistols or revolvers. The articles represented by Exhibits 1 and 2 are invoiced as “air pistols” and are so-designated by counsel for the plaintiff in their brief. The mere fact that they shoot bullets or pellets by the force of air instead of by explosion of gun powder would not necessarily make them any tireless pistols. Also, the articles invoiced as pistolets resemble double action revolvers, except that they shoot blank cartridges, and they are admittedly used as revolvers on the stage and for starting races- and the like.

As shedding some light upon the common meaning of the words-“pistols” and “revolvers,” we quote the following dictionary definitions:

Pistol. A short firearm intended to be aimed and fired from one hand. Pistols are now usually either revolvers (which see), or automatic, or semiautomatic, magazine pistols.
Revolver, n. 1. One that revolves, specif.: a. A firearm (commonly a pistol) with a cylinder of several chambers or, formerly, several barrels so arranged as-to revolve on an axis, and be discharged in succession by the same lock. The-commonest calibers are .38, .32, .22, and .35 inch.
Firearm. Any weapon from which a shot is discharged by an explosive, as-gunpowder; usually applied only to small arms.
Air gun. A kind of gun in which the elastic force of condensed air is used to-discharge the ball. — Webster’s New International Dictionary.
Pistol. 1. A small fire-arm, with a more or less curved stock, adapted to beheld in, and fired by, one hand.
Revolver. 1. A pistol provided with mechanism by which a set of loaded barrels, or (more usually) of cartridge-chambers, is revolved and presented in succession before the hammer, so as to admit of the rapid discharge of several shots without reloading.
Air-Pistol. One in which the propelling power is the explosive force of inflammable gases.
Firearm. A weapon from which missiles are propelled by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive. — Oxford Dictionary.
Pistol.

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

Related

American Weapons Corp. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 155 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Madison Import Corp. v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 63 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
United Merchandising Corp. v. United States
42 Cust. Ct. 396 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States
21 Cust. Ct. 145 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Protest 821660-G of Laszlo
8 Cust. Ct. 485 (U.S. Customs Court, 1942)
Protest 823959-G of Galef
8 Cust. Ct. 420 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Protests 826020-G of Galef
6 Cust. Ct. 646 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Protest 939913-G of L. Oppleman, Inc.
5 Cust. Ct. 313 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
L. Oppleman, Inc. v. United States
3 Cust. Ct. 301 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Cust. Ct. 209, 1938 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laszlo-v-united-states-cusc-1938.