Opinion by LAWRENCE J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of United States v. Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al. (47 C.C.P.A. 152. C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

No. 66463.-Florea & Co., Inc. v. United States, protest 61/13879 (New York). NYLON GLOVES-GLOVES OF SYNTHETIC TEXTILE-SILK GLOVES-SIMILITUDETRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 25 cents per pound and 321⁄2 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1309, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, for gloves in chief value of synthetic textile is claimed dutiable at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 1208, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), for silk gloves, by similitude under paragraph 1559, as amended.

Opinion by FORD, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of United States v. Steinberg Bros. (47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 66464.-Albert Fahner v. United States, protest 60/28276 (A) (New York). NYLON YARN-SYNTHETIC TEXTILE-SILK, THROWN-SIMILITUDE-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1301, Tariff Act of 1930, as synthetic textile is claimed dutiable at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1203, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine, by similitude under paragraph 1559, or as amended.

Opinion by FORD, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon yarn similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in United States v. Steinberg Bros. (47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, FEBRUARY 14, 1962

No. 66465.-J. M. Sutton Sons & Co. v. United States, protest 61/7350 (New York).

CHINAWARE WALL PLAQUES-METAL ARTICLES ENTIRETIES-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Chinaware wall plaques with wire frames were assessed at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 212, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified. It is claimed that the merchandise is dutiable as an entirety with the wire frames at the rate in effect when the respective items of merchandise were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), or by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for metal articles.

Opinion by JOHNSON, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of Ross Products, Inc. v. United States (43 Cust. Ct. 74, C.D. 2106), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARINGS

FEBRUARY 13, 1962

No. 66466.-Sol Tool Company v. United States, protests 59/16641, etc. Protests abandoned January 10, 1962. (Not published.) (Initial No. 58/7519.) Plaintiff's application for rehearing granted.

No. 66467.-United Mineral & Chemical Corp. v. United States, protest 61/1454. Protest abandoned January 18, 1962. (Not published.) (Initial No. 283338-K.) Plaintiff's application for rehearing granted.

BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION, FEBRUARY 19, 1962

No. 66468.-Novelty Import Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, protests 61/10469, etc. (New York).

PLASTIC BACK SCRATCHERS-BAMBOO ARTICLES-MANUFACTURES OF IVORYSIMILITUDE-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 25 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 409, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), for bamboo articles, by similitude under paragraph 1559, as amended, is claimed dutiable at the appropriate rate, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 1538, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for manufactures of ivory, by similitude. Opinion by MOLLISON, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic back scratchers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 161, C.D. 2218), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

No. 66469.-S. Berger Co. et al. v. United States, protests 60/5329, etc. (New York).

ARTIFICIAL FRUITS-GLASS BALLS-COLORED GLASS ARTICLES-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 35 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1518, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), for artificial fruits in chief value of other materials is claimed dutiable at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 218(f), as modified, supra, for colored glass articles, valued not over $1.66% each.

Opinion by WILSON, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of Joseph Markovits, Inc. v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, FEBRUARY 19, 1962

No. 66470.-Carlyle Fabrics v. United States, protests 267019-K, etc. (New York).

COTTON VELVETEENS-WATERPROOF CLOTH-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 25 cents per square yard under the provision in paragraph 909, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802) or by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52857), for cotton velveteens is claimed dutiable at 121⁄2 percent under the pro

vision in paragraph 907, as modified by T.D. 51802, for waterproof cloth, wholly or in chief value of cotton.

Opinion by RAO, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of United States v. D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. (47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 66471.-Carlyle Fabrics v. United States, protests 302968-K, etc.

York).

(New

COTTON VELVETEENS-WATERPROOF COTTON CLOTH-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 30 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 909, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), for cotton velveteens is claimed dutiable at 12 or 121⁄2 percent under the provision in paragraph 907, as modified, depending upon the date of entry, for waterproof cloth, wholly or in chief value of cotton.

Opinion by RAO, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of United States v. D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. (47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 66472.-Carlyle Fabrics v. United States, protests 305501-K, etc. (New

York).

COTTON VELVETEENS-WATERPROOF COTTON CLOTH-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at the respective rate or rates applicable to cotton velveteens in paragraph 909, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, is claimed dutiable at 12 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 907, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for waterproof cloth, wholly or in chief value of cotton.

Opinion by RAO, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of United States v. D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. (47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 66473.-May Dept. Stores Co. et al. v. United States, protests 59/13087, etc. (Los Angeles).

VACUUM BRUSH CLEANERS-METAL HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS-ARTICLES HAVING AS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE AN ELECTICAL ELEMENT OR DEVICE-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 18 or 19 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 339, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 339), as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for metal household utensils is claimed duitable at 134 percent under the provision in paragraph 353 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device.

Opinion by RAO, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vacuum brush cleaners similar in all material respects to those the subject of Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms v. United States (45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, FEBRUARY 20, 1962

No. 66474.-United China and Glass Company v. United States, petitions 7245-R and 7246-R (New Orleans).

REMISSION-INTENT.

FORD, Judge: These are petitions for the remission of additional duties filed under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930, assessed by

reason of the undervaluation upon entry of an importation, consisting of chinaware and earthenware from Japan. The merchandise was entered in three entries made in September and November 1948.

The record herein establishes that additional duties resulted by reason of undervaluation, due to a difference of opinion between the petitioner and the collector as to whether certain inland charges were part of the dutiable value. It appears that the entries covered by the above petitions after appraisement were the subject of appeals for reappraisement, which were subsequently abandoned as a result of an adverse decision on the inland freight issue.

Jerome Levy, vice president of petitioner, with whom he has been associated for 38 years, was called on behalf of petitioner and testified that he supervised the entries of the merchandise in question and directed the customs broker to increase the invoice value to conform to the current market value in all instances where his information was indicative of a higher value than shown on the invoices. In the entries before the court, there are numerous examples of such increases made on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Levy stated that, at the time of making the entries, it was his opinion that the inland charges were nondutiable. Accordingly, he entered the merchandise at the unit price, less the inland charges and certain commissions.

It is the contention of petitioner that the differential between the entered value and the appraised value is attributable to the prorata portion of the inland charges. Government counsel replying to a question by the court agreed that this was a correct statement.

Based upon the record before the court and the concession of the Government as to the correctness of petitioner's contention, it is our opinion that the undervaluation of the merchandise was due to an honest difference of opinion as to the dutiability of the inland charges, and the court is satisfied that the entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. Newland, Schneelock & Piek, Inc. v. United States, 43 Cust. Ct. 288, Abstract 63198.

The petitions are, therefore, granted and judgment will be entered accordingly.

No. 66475.-M. M. Du Pouey v. United States, petition 7247-R (New Orleans). REMISSION-INTENT.

FORD, Judge: This is a petition filed under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for the remission of additional duties assessed by reason of undervaluation on entry of certain hard candy, imported from Cuba at the port of New Orleans.

The facts as to the particular entry involved, as developed in the record and papers, are as follows:

The petitioner in the case at bar, M. M. Du Pouey, is a customhouse broker. In making entry, petitioner obtained the consular invoice, indicating Knickerbocker Food Products Co. as the purchaser and setting forth the price of $12.50 per hundred pounds, and the original bill of lading. Said merchandise was, accordingly, entered at this value, less certain nondutiable charges. Petitioner also filed with the appraiser a request for information as to value, which was signed by Edward J. Skrod, vice president of Knickerbocker Food Products, Inc. The return of the appraiser indicated that no current information as to market value was obtainable and that the value was to be ascertained from the shipper. In addition, petitioner herein obtained a declaration of ownership on customs Form 3347, duly signed by Edward J. Skrod, vice president of Knickerbocker Food Products, Inc. However, said form was received by petitioner too late

to be filed with the collector of customs at New Orleans. A copy of said declaration was received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1.

Thereafter, and before final appraisement, petitioner, as indicated by her collective exhibit 4, communicated with the importer through its New Orleans agent, in order to obtain additional information relative to the entered value. The information given by the importer substantiated the entered value. The merchandise was subsequently appraised at $16 per hundred pounds, less certain nondutiable charges.

After appraisement, an appeal for reappraisement was filed, and the petitioner corresponded with the New Orleans agent and representative of Knickerbocker Food Products, Inc., and made various other inquiries, in an effort to obtain information relative to the entered value. While this data was being accumulated, Mr. Skrod died and his firm became inactive.

Mr. Lacy Richeson, agent of the actual importer herein, who was also attempting to obtain information, died shortly before the trial date. As a result, petitioner believed it was necessary to abandon the appeal for reappraisement.

The testimony of petitioner indicates that, by virtue of the information received, she had no reason to believe that a value different from the entered value should be used. Also, she gave to the customs officials all the information she had and talked with them on several occasions about the matter.

Petitioner then called Mr. Charles J. Colomes, an assistant appraiser of merchandise with the customs service, who, at the time of entry of the merchandise in question, was an examiner handling sugar and candy articles. Mr. Colomes testified that he has known the petitioner for about 33 years and that, to his knowledge, she enjoys an excellent business reputation in New Orleans and that he regards her as a person of high moral character and personal integrity.

The question of what constitutes satisfactory evidence to support a petition for remission of additional duties has previously been determined by this court and our appellate court.

Where a customs broker makes an entry and does not file an owner's declaration executed by the ultimate consignee, the nominal consignee is, for tariff purposes, the owner and principal and not the agent of the actual owner. American Shipping Co. v. United States, 10 Cust. Ct. 300, C.D. 771. Therefore, in such a remission proceeding, the good faith of the actual owner is not in issue. National Carloading Corp. v. United States, 16 Cust. Ct. 138, C.D. 1001.

The cases further establish that, in remission cases, the petitioner assumes the burden of establishing that, in undervaluing the merchandise, he was acting in good faith; that no facts were known to him which would cause a prudent person to question the correctness of the values given by him; and that a full disclosure was made to customs officials of all material facts within his knowledge relative to the value of the merchandise. Stan Newcomb and Barbara Todd v. United States, 37 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 18, C.A.D. 413; Leonard Brauner v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 64, C.D. 1905; Gerhart L. Kobrak v. United States, 12 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 838, rehearing denied, 12 Cust. Ct. 301, Abstract 49377.

Therefore, upon the record in the instant case, we must determine whether the petitioner, who is the customhouse broker and importer of record, exercised good faith and did not conceal or misrepresent the facts with fraudulent intent. From the record before the court in this case, it is our opinion that petitioner acted in good faith and that petitioner made a full disclosure of all the material facts in her possession bearing upon the value of the merchandise after a reasonable and prudent investigation into the question of value.

It is our opinion, therefore, and we so hold, that the entry at a value less than that returned upon appraisement was without intent to defraud the revenue of