Swift & Anderson, Inc. v. United States

38 Cust. Ct. 443
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedApril 2, 1957
DocketNo. 60595; protests 229441-K (New York)
StatusPublished

This text of 38 Cust. Ct. 443 (Swift & Anderson, Inc. 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
Swift & Anderson, Inc. v. United States, 38 Cust. Ct. 443 (cusc 1957).

Opinion

Lawrence, Judge:

This proceeding relates to merchandise described on the consular invoice as “6" Sound glasses complete with brass bezels and brass set knob and pointers.”

The collector of customs classified the merchandise as articles in chief value of base metal, not specially provided for, in paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, and imposed duty thereon at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff claims, by its protest, that the subject merchandise should be classified as parts of a machine in paragraph 372 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 372), as modified by the Torquay protocol to said general agreement, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T. D. 52739, dutiable at 13% per centum ad valorem.

[444]*444The case was submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts which embodies some of the testimony taken in the case of United States v. L. Oppleman, Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 168, T. D. 49271.

The agreement, as stipulated, together with certain testimony referred to therein, is here set forth:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by the above-named protest referred to as “6" round glasses complete w/brass bezels
2. That said aneroid barometer with which said complete face cover is designed for use, is designed for use and is chiefly used in a home by members of a household as a household utensil, and is composed in chief value of base metal, not aluminum, not plated with platinum, gold or silver, and not enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses.
3. That said aneroid barometer, with which said complete face cover is designed for use, contains the same mechanism and motivating factors as the aneroid barometers that were the subject of decision in the case of United States v. L. Oppleman Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 168, T. D. 49271, and with respect to all of the aforesaid aneroid barometers in the operation of their mechanism the following testimony of Samuel Sanders given in the last cited case shall be deemed for all purposes to be incorporated and in evidence in this case, i. e.
A. The air pressure acting on this diaphragm, which I have marked “A”, causes this lever, which is attached to the spring “L”, which takes up a portion of the vacuum and transmits it to the lever “0”. The lever “O”, which is bearing on a lever “P”, to which is attached a fine chain; the chain is attached to a staff marked “S” to which is attached the indicator needle “C” which shows on the dial, the air pressure, whether it is falling or rising.
Q. Is there a hairspring on that mechanism? — A. There is a hairspring.
Q. Does the spring, which you have marked “L”, rise and fall to a slight extent when the vacuum, which you have marked “A”, rises and falls?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does the variance of that atmospheric pressure cause the diaphragm on that vacuum marked “A” to rise and fall? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does anything move in Exhibit 1? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What moves? — A. There are several things which move.
Q. Will you kindly name them? — A. The hairspring, the chain, and the lever move.
Q. How did you mark the lever? — A. The lever which moves is marked “P”. The hairspring, which I could not mark, as it is too fine, and the indicator “0”.
[445]*445Q. Does the spring move, which you marked “L”? — -A. That moves up and down.
Judge Dallingeb. How many different things there move when the atmospheric pressure changes?
The Witness. Nine.
Judge Dallingeb. Nine things?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Tompkins:
Q. Do they all move because of the pressure on the vacuum? — A. Yes, sir.

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

Related

J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. v. United States
31 Cust. Ct. 86 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Cust. Ct. 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-anderson-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1957.