Marconi Instruments, Ltd. v. United States

38 Cust. Ct. 311
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 22, 1957
DocketC. D. 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 311 (Marconi Instruments, Ltd. 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
Marconi Instruments, Ltd. v. United States, 38 Cust. Ct. 311 (cusc 1957).

Opinion

Lawrence, Judge:

Certain imported klystron tubes, so called, identified by tbe number K-302, were classified by the collector of customs in that portion of paragraph 353 of.the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, which provides for “Articles suitable for producing, rectifying, modifying, controlling, or distributing electrical energy,” and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem.

Although plaintiff’s protest invokes certain alternative claims for lower rates of duty than that assessed by the collector, at the trial, plaintiff limited its protest to the claim that the articles in controversy are “parts of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices” and fall within the second provision of said paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T. D. 52739, and, accordingly, dutiable at 12% per centum ad valorem.

Paragraph 353, as modified by said general agreement, supra, provides:

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

The second provision of paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay protocol to said general agreement, supra, reads:

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)4% ad val.

While plaintiff concedes that the klystron tubes rectify, modify, control, or distribute electrical energy, it claims that they are, never[313]*313theless, more specifically described as parts of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices. It is not disputed that said tubes are “other than laboratory.”

At the trial, plaintiff called Richard John Bailey as a witness. He testified that he is the manager of the New York office of the Marconi Instruments, Ltd., his duties being to control the importation, sales, and technical service of the instruments manufactured by that company; that Marconi Instruments, Ltd., is an importer of radio apparatus, “mainly instruments of the klystron tubes which we are dealing with here, and certain other electrical instruments, mainly for the purposes of measurement in radio apparatus.” He produced a sample representing the imported item, which was received in evidence as exhibit 1.

Bailey holds a diploma from the City and Guilds College of London, England, in radio engineering. His war service was concerned primarily with radar equipment not only as an instructor, but as the radar officer of a fleet aircraft carrier whose radar equipment used the early forms of klystron tubes. As an instructor, he taught the basic elements of radar- — -then a new science — and was responsible for training radio mechanics in the maintenance of radar equipment for the British Navy. He also had experience as a senior radar officer of the largest (at that time) British aircraft carrier, “Formidable.” As a result of his early training in radio and his active experience in the British Navy, Bailey displayed a very familiar and intimate knowledge of the nature, construction, use, and operation of the K-302 klystron tube.

He stated that the main function of the tube is “for the production of very short wave-length radio waves,” a radio wave being described by the witness as “an oscillating wave which has been caused to leave the equipment in which it was produced or generated. An electrical vibration is considered to become a radio wave when it has in fact left the equipment, generally by means of an antenna, and has radiated out-into space.”

Bailey testified that not all electrical currents become radio waves and that there are two basic types of electrical current. One is the direct, emanating from a flashlight battery, which cannot become a radio wave. The second type of current is an oscillating one which may oscillate at low frequencies at a very low speed, “such as the current which is drawn from domestic electrical supply,” oscillating at the low speed of 60 pulses per second.

He stated that “cycles” is the technical term generally used for oscillations or pulses; that domestic current changes 60 times per second, but cannot be used to radiate into space since “the lowest speeds of oscillation at which a current can be made to radiate into [314]*314space is about 15,000 cycles per second.” Continuing upon this point, the witness testified:

* * * In practice, a much higher frequency is generally used, in most cases from about half a million cycles per second to, say, 30 million. Now, although that sounds very high as a speed of oscillation it is in fact quite low in radio terms. Those speeds of oscillation from half a million to 30 million cycles per second are the speeds which are used, generally speaking, for entertainment broadcasting, which, of course, is one application of radio. Now, as I said, much higher speeds of oscillation are possible, and in fact it’s very desirable to use much higher speeds than that for certain other purposes for which radio waves are used. By that I mean purposes other than the broadcasting of sound and music. One of these purposes is radar. And it can be shown mathematically that most types of radar operate more efficiently if they use radio waves of much higher frequency than 30 million times per second. And the majority of radar equipment these days works at frequencies of the order of 3 to 10 thousand million cycles per second, a very, very high rate of oscillation.

Due to the technical nature of the device in controversy, it is deemed prudent to quote at some length the testimony of the witness Bailey, who was shown to be exceptionally well qualified on the subject, rather than attempt to translate it into narrative form.

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

Related

Gehrig v. United States
61 Cust. Ct. 344 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
United Merchandising Corp. v. United States
48 Cust. Ct. 50 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Marconi International Marine Communication Co. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 424 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Dean v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 419 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Marconi Instruments, Ltd. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 419 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Cust. Ct. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marconi-instruments-ltd-v-united-states-cusc-1957.