United States v. Wanamaker

15 Ct. Cust. 310, 1927 WL 29491, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 126
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedNovember 14, 1927
DocketNo. 2967
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 Ct. Cust. 310 (United States v. Wanamaker) 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. Wanamaker, 15 Ct. Cust. 310, 1927 WL 29491, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 126 (ccpa 1927).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

- Merchandise, invoiced as steam engines, was classified by the collector of customs at Philadelphia as mechanical toys under that part of paragraph 1414 of the Tariff Act of 1922 which reads as follows:

1414. Dolls * * * and all other toys and parts of toys * * * not specially provided for, 70 per centum ad valorem.

The importer protested that the goods were steam engines and that they were dutiable at 15 per centum ad valorem under paragraph [311]*311372 or at 40 per centum ad valorem as articles of metal under paragraph 399. The parts of paragraphs 372 and 399 of the act of 1922 upon which the importer relies in his protest read as follows:

372. Steam engines and steam locomotives, 15 per centum ad valorem.
399. Articles or wares not specially provided for * * * if composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other metal, * * * 40 per centum ad valorem.

The United States Customs Court held that the merchandise was dutiable as steam engines at 15 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 and sustained the protest. From the judgment of the Customs Court the Government appealed.

On the trial of the issues raised by the protest the importer introduced Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 as samples of the merchandise, and rested.

William Schoeneman testified on behalf of the Government that he had been engaged in the business of importing toys for 29 years prior to the spring of 1925; that Exhibit 1 was a toy steam engine and that similar merchandise was bought by him from manufacturers of toys and that they were sold to toy stores and to stores selling toys at Christmas time; that Exhibit 3 was a toy and that both Exhibits 1 and 3 have insufficient horsepower for any practical use and have no utilitarian purpose; that he had seen both exhibits in motion and that he had used such merchandise to display to customers and for the amusement of children.

F. W. Trumpore testified on behalf of the Government that he was sales manager of a doll-manufacturing concern and that he had been a buyer of toys for department stores; that he bought toys for Harper & Needham for seven years and had had charge of thirty-odd stores of another firm; that as buyer of toys for Harper & Need-ham and for said stores he purchased articles such as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 from toy concerns; that as buyer of toys he bought articles as large as Exhibit 2 or even larger; that he made his purchases abroad from Plant, Arnold & Bing, whose principal business was the manufacture of toy steam engines and magic lanterns; that merchandise of the kind imported was sold by him to parents of children who bought them for their children’s amusement; that they were sold by the firm with which he was connected as toys; that he demonstrated the operation of such engines by attaching to them a water pipe and driving it by water pressure; that they would operate a little lathe 2, 2J4, or 3 inches high and made little paper figures and things of that kind; that very little steam pressure is required to operate the engine and that they could almost be moved by the breath; that the wholesale price of such engines runs from $1 to $22 or $23. On cross-examination the witness said that engines of the kind represented by Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are run by steam, but that some engines are. operated- by water pressure; .that the -exhibits [312]*312were steam engines and that their horsepower was so infinitesimal that it could not amount to much.

William Richey testified for the Government that he was a manufacturer of toy steam engines and that he had been “up against them since 1889 as toys;” that “there has been very active competition”; that Exhibit 2, the largest of the three exhibits, could not be used for anything, as its cylinder was not a real cylinder and that the bore dimension in the cylinder was not real; that the larger part of the cylinder is designed to produce the impression that it is a great power cylinder whereas it is not; that Exhibit 2 is used to amuse children and to run small lathes, little saws, and small figures; that nothing practical can be done with it; that the governor on Exhibit 2 is a “bluff” and does not govern and has no practical use; that the governor is not connected with the cylinder on Exhibit 2; that the governor on a real steam engine controls the steam entering into the cylinder by rising higher as the pressure increases.

The testimony of J. S. Patterson, introduced by the importer, was to the effect that he had been assistant buyer for John Wanamaker for 10 years; that the finer grades of steam engines are known as models and are made of heavy construction all the way through; that in some of the types, steam is produced by alcohol and in others by alcohol or gas; that some are run by gas or alcohol and some by steam; that steam is the power by which they go; that the alcohol mentioned is for the purpose of getting up steam to propel the engine;, that such engines range in size from 12 inches to about 20 inches; that they have a heavy brass boiler, a sort of sheet brass, and that the couplings are also of brass; that some of the engines on the invoices serve a useful purpose and are used by grown-ups as well as by children because they are of a model type; that anything sold from $10 up would be a better engine and below that price would be a toy engine. On cross-examination the witness said that the higher-priced engine would be more detailed and have little valves or cocks like large size engines; that the engines which sold for less than $10 and get up steam are used by children only; that the adult plays with engines costing over $10 more than does the youngster because they are more detailed and more complicated; that the play of the adult is, of course, for the youngster’s benefit; that the basic principle of construction of the engines whether selling for $8 or $12 is the same but that the higher-priced engine has more .detail and quality and is “harder for the youngster to get to”; that it has two or three pet cocks which are too intricate for the little tot to handle; that the invoiced engines are of the better quality and more complicated type; that in 1924 at Christmas time youngsters got the better engine and they were sent back twice for repair because they ruined it; that one of the engines cost $25 or $28 and the'father who [313]*313bought it handled it all right; that the child burned the boiler of a $10 engine because he did not know how to operate it but that a grown-up might burn the boiler for the same reason; that the child is just as likely to burn a cheap engine as a dear one.

Exhibit 1 is composed of a metal stand, a standing boiler, steam cylinders, and a flywheel to which are attached piston rods that are connected with the pistons of the steam cylinders. The steam cylinders are mounted on a platform provided with a diminutive ladder which extends to the metal base. The ladder which runs from the piston platform to the metal base can not be used by a child and serves no practical purpose whatever. The cylinders are connected with the steam boiler by metal tubes equipped with a very small pet cock to turn on or shut off the steam from the boiler. The boiler is designed to hold less than a pint of water and is fitted with a safety valve, steam whistle, water gauge, and smokestack. Under the boiler is a compartment designed to contain an alcohol lamp.

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

Related

Pressner v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 316 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
International Expediters, Inc. v. United States
43 Cust. Ct. 403 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Shackman v. United States
31 Cust. Ct. 352 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
International Models, Inc. v. United States
31 Cust. Ct. 24 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
United States v. Hori Bros.
19 C.C.P.A. 108 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Wolf v. United States
19 C.C.P.A. 132 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
United States v. Merckens
17 C.C.P.A. 318 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Ct. Cust. 310, 1927 WL 29491, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wanamaker-ccpa-1927.