United States v. Diamond

42 C.C.P.A. 9
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 9, 1954
DocketNo. 4770
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 C.C.P.A. 9 (United States v. Diamond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Diamond, 42 C.C.P.A. 9 (ccpa 1954).

Opinion

Jackson, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Appellee imported a 16 milbmeter sound motion-picture projector into tbe port of New York. Tbe projector comprised two units, eacb enclosed in a metal case provided with bandies designed to be used iii tbe carrying thereof. In one of tbe cases was contained mechanism for tbe projection of tbe picture and tbe transmission or rectifying tbe sound into electrical energy for amplification. Tbe other case contained the loud-speaker with a transformer and a cord of wire designed to plug into a socket in tbe case which contained tbe projector.

Tbe importation was classified by tbe collector pursuant to paragraph 228 (b) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, which reads as follows:

* * * projection lenses * * * all optical instruments, frames and mountings therefor, and parts of any of the foregoing; all the foregoing, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, 45 per centum ad valorem.

Tbe portion of tbe foregoing quoted part of the act covering projection lenses and frames and mountings therefor, which carry a dutiable rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, bad been invoked by tbe collector.

Appellee protested tbe classification and claimed tbe imported merchandise to be properly dutiable under paragraph 353 of tbe act as modified by tbe Trade Agreement with tbe United Kingdom, T. D. 49753, reading as follows:

[11]*11 Tariff Act of 1930 paragraph Description of article Díate of duty
353 Electrical signaling, radio, welding, and ignition appa- 25% ad val. ratus, instruments (other than laboratory), and devices, electrical generators, transformers, converters, double current and motor generators, dynamotors, and all other 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, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, refrigerators, and signs (except telephone, wiring, diagnostic, and therapeutic apparatus, instruments, and devices, primary cells, flashlights, switches, switch gear, fans, blowers, washing machines, and machines not herein provided for by name which would be dutiable under paragraph 372, Tariff Act of 1930, if of a kind which could be designed to operate without such electrical element or device, and except articles of a class or kind with respect to which United States import duties have been reduced or bound against increase pursuant to any agreement heretofore concluded under section 350 of such act, as amended); all the foregoing not specially provided for, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not provided for heretofore in any item numbered 353 in this schedule.

An alternative claim was also made by appellee under the general provision for “all other machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for” of paragraph 372 of the act carrying the assessment of duty in the rate of 27}j per cent ad valorem. One witness, son of the importer, testified in the case and three exhibits, which are photographs used to illustrate the testimony of the witness, are in evidence. The Government produced no testimony.

The United States Customs Court, First Division, gave judgment sustaining the protest with respect to the claim of the proper rate of duty being 25 per cent ad valorem under the modified paragraph 353 of the act pursuant to its decision, Abstract 56994. From the judgment this appeal was taken.

The mechanism and operation of the machine were meticulously described by the witness. His testimony was well summed up by the trial court in its decision and adopted by the Government in its brief. Therefore, we will quote from the decision of the trial court as follows:

The sound motion-picture projector under consideration uses a film that not only carries the picture sequence, but also has a sound track as an integral part thereof. The motive power for the mechanism is an electric motor which causes the film to travel through the projector in this way. The reel of film is mounted on an arm and, in unwinding, it passes over so-called idlers and then is threaded [12]*12around a sprocket, traveling in a loop through a gate. In the gate, there is an aperture at which the film remains momentarily still while a shutter opens, and th,e light from an incandescent lamp passes through the film and through the projector lens, causing the picture to appear on the screen. As the film comes out through the bottom of the gate, it is threaded in another loop and carried through a sprocket and two additional idlers to the take-up reel.
The sound track is an integral part of the film. Light from an incandescent lamp passes through the sound track to a photoelectric cell that transforms variations in light density, caused by irregularities in density on the sound track, into fluctuations 'in an electric current. A control panel regulates the volume and tone of the sounds
The loud-speaker is electrically connected with the projector by a five-point connector to accommodate the five wires wrapped in an insulating cable connecting the loud-speaker and the projector. The electrical connection energizes an electromagnet in the loud-speaker, thereby exciting the voice coil and causing the diaphragm to vibrate, thus producing sound. Speed of the sound projection is regulated by a large gear upon which is mounted a flywheel and a pulley. Three electronic tubes rectify and amplify the sound.
The transformer is essential to change the electric current for proper sound application. The projector is designed to operate only on alternting current. Direct current is necessary to excite the voice coil and the transformer accomplishes the necessary adjustment. A series of jacks makes the projector adaptable to any area, irrespective of the type of voltage available.

It also appears. from the testimony that the apparatus cannot operate unless it is all connected together as shown by the following answers to the questions by Government counsel.

XQ. What I mean is, on exhibit 1 here you have the whole box. Now the part •to which the lens fits into, that is the rest of this, is that the entire projector? A. You mean what is shown in plaintiff’s exhibit 1, which happens to include the lens, does that in my opinion constitute the entire projector?
XQ. Yes. A. No; it doesn’t, because it can’t operate at all unless the loud speaker unit, shown in plaintiff’s exhibit 3, is also connected to it and operating.
XQ. In other words, you can’t operate that projector without the loud speaker unit? A. That is correct.
XQ. Can’t you run still films on it, or silent films on it? A. They would have to be silent films taken especially for the purpose, because the standard speed at-which silent films'are taken in [sic] 16 frames per second, and the standard speed of sound film is 24 frames per second, and this device has no speed adjustment on it. It is made with a synchronous motor that operates at 24 frames per second, so if you attempt to show a silent film on it, unless especially taken for that purpose, the actors in the film would appear to be moving at 50 percent greater than normal speed.
XQ. Isn’t the sound part plugged into the rest of the set? A. Yes.

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

Related

Reeves Equipment Corp. v. United States
45 Cust. Ct. 387 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 C.C.P.A. 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-diamond-ccpa-1954.