Servo-Tek Products Co. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 224, 291 F. Supp. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2183
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedOctober 7, 1968
DocketC.D. 3581
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 Cust. Ct. 224 (Servo-Tek Products Co. 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
Servo-Tek Products Co. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 224, 291 F. Supp. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2183 (cusc 1968).

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case described as geared motors was imported from England and entered at the port of New York on May 16,1963. It was assessed with duty at 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified 'by Presidential Proclamation No. 3468, 97 Treas. Dec. 157, T.D. 55615, as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device. Various claims were made in the protest all of which were abandoned except the claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 9% per centum ad valorem under said paragraph 353, as modified by Presidential Proclamation No. 3512, 98 Treas. Dec. 28, T.D. 55805, as motors of more than %0 horsepower, but less than 200 horsepower.

Pertinent provisions of the tariff act, as modified, are as follows: Paragraph 353, as modified by T.D. 55615:

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 and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:

‡ ‡ ‡ $
Other * * * (except * * *)-12^% ad val.

Paragraph 353, as modified by T.D. 55805:

Articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or, device, such as electric motors * * * wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:

Motors of more than %0 horsepower but less than 200 horsepower---914% ad val.

[226]*226At the trial, Chester A. Palmieri, design, engineer of Servo-Tek Products Cot, Inc., testified that he had held that position for 16 years and had previously been employed as production tool engineer for 2 years. Plis duties include the design of products from the point of inception through final testing and also the examination of customers’ orders and specifications. During the course of his employment he became familiar with geared motors by working with them and using them over a period of 16 years. He was shown the invoice accompanying the entry and stated that he was familiar with the items thereon. They are described on the invoices as follows:

D.C. Supply. Shunt Wound. T.E.F.C. 3600/90 PPM. FRAME bio. Dr. 6. Geared Motor Nos. 37926/26. D.
D.C. Supply. Shunt Wound. T.E.F.C. 3600/40 PPM. Frame No. Dr. 5. Geared Motor Nos. 37927/27. B.
D.C. Supply. Shunt Wound. T.E.F.C. 3600/18 PPM. Frame No. 25. 4. Geared Motor Nos. 37923/23. G.
D.C. Supply. Shunt Wound. T.E.F.C. 3600/90 PPM. Frame No. 25. 4. Geared Motor Nos. 37925/25. F.

The witness testified that the first two were y2 horsepower motors and the last two % horsepower motors. He explained that D.C. meant direct current, Shunt Wound referred to field and armature parallel winding and T.E.F.C. meant a totally enclosed fan-cooled motor. He said that 3600 PPM was the armature speed and that 3600/90 meant the reduction speed was from 3600 through 90 PPM. That reduction was caused by the gear train on the motor.

The witness stated that a motor is a machine which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy and has a rotating shaft to operate at a given power. It consists of two important parts: The field (located within the frame of the motor), which can be either of a permanent magnet type or an electromagnet type, and the armature, which is the rotating member. A gear alone is a cog wheel, and a gear train is a series of gears in mesh, that is, the rotating parts driven by the prime mover (the armature), and an output shaft. A gear box is the frame into which a gear train fits.

Several exhibits illustrating the merchandise here involved were received in evidence. A picture of the complete geared motor (exhibit 1), a blueprint or drawing thereof (exhibit 2), and a picture illustrative of the inner parts of a geared motor (exhibit 3).

The witness pointed out the various parts of the motor on exhibit 2, marking separately the field, the armature, the bearings support-[227]*227rng the armature, and the shaft. He also marked the gear train and the output shaft thereof. He said that the gears for the DR. type equipment were a worm and worm gear combination and those for the type 25 were spur gears.

The witness explained that the gear box is attached to the motor by removing an end belt which is a part which encloses one end of the motor and assembling the gear box to that. If a proper pinion is absent from the motor shaft, it must be attached. Such a pinion would cost about $2.50. The work of assembly or disassembly would take 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. Palmieri testified that a geared motor differs from an ungeared motor in that it has a gear train affixed to the motor and will drive at a slower speed and a higher torque. Its function is one which agrees with the definition of a motor. He explained that torque is a measure of force which is rotating and said that it was mechanically possible to reduce the speed and increase the torque of a nongeared motor by the use of a chain and sprocket drive, a V-belt pulley or timing belts. However, there were benefits in using a geared motor, such as flexibility, economy, compactness, and sales appeal.

According to the witness, his firm uses these geared motors as a component part in an electronic drive system which is called an adjustable speed drive system and which is sold commercially in the United States by Servo-Tek. They are made to the specifications of Servo-Tek and not those of any particular customer. They are not designed to go into a specific machine, but are designed to meet the requirement of a specific range of speeds and power outputs. Through the use of the system it is possible to maintain given speeds regardless of the load variation or line variation, that is, the input power variations. According to the witness, the geared motor is nothing more than the component part which provides or imparts motion to satisfy a customer’s application. It performs the function of a motor imparting rotation to any mating part at a given force or power. He explained that a workable speed range of a nongeared motor would be from 36 RPM to 3600 RPM and that if a customer required something that was going to go as low as 3.6 RPM, a ten to one gear reduction would be used to maintain the same speed range. Thus the customer would have a motor which would run from 3.6 RPM to 360 RPM. This type of gear arrangement which would be attached to the motor would depend upon the specific end use to be made by the customer.

According to the witness these geared motors are used in many applications, such as printing presses and pumps, and in the textile industry, in the glass industry, and in machine tools. Ungeared motors could also be used for these purposes and are so used to the knowledge [228]*228of the -witness. He added that the gear ratio in a particular geared motor would limit its application.

In the witness’ opinion, the merchandise herein, such as that depicted on exhibit 1, is a motor. He said that basically what is being done is to transmit motion at a certain force and at a certain rate of speed which is at a certain power.

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

Related

Liebert v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 202 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
American Laubscher Corp. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 384 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Wiley v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 540 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Cust. Ct. 224, 291 F. Supp. 678, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/servo-tek-products-co-v-united-states-cusc-1968.