MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS 1

Neumeyer & Dimond v.

from Reap. Dec. 2687.

DISMISSED

OCTOBER 2, 1933

United States (No. 3620).-Fourdrinier wire. Appeal

United States v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (No. 3652).-Chinaware. Appeal from T.D. 46162.

United States v. Amberg Schwab & Co., Inc. et al. (No. 3659).-Cellulose braids. Appeal from T.D. 46204.

United States v. Schmidt & Wezel, Inc. (No. 3679).—Machine parts. Appeal from Abstract 23354.

OCTOBER 4, 1933

Hermes Leather Co. Inc. v. Hookless Fastener Co. (No. 3681).-Slide Fasteners; unfair competition. Appeal from United States Tariff Commission.

NOVEMBER 28, 1933

United States v. Mandel Brothers (No. 3742).-Madeira embroideries. Appeal from Reap. Dec. 3090.

DECEMBER 5, 1933

F. F. G. Harper Co. et al. v. United States (No. 3692).—Sardines. Appeal from Abstract 24004.

DECEMBER 15, 1933

Freedman & Slater v. United States (No. 3636).—Bergamot oil. Appeal from T.D. 45992.

JANUARY 29, 1934

American Bemberg Corp., et al. v. United States (No. 3686).-Chemical machines; textile machinery. Appeal from Abstract 23407.

FEBRUARY 14, 1934

Old Masters Paper & Pulp Corp v. United States (No. 3720).-Tissue paper. Appeal from T.D. 46425.

American Electro Metal Corp. v. United States (No. 3743).-Molybdenum wire. Appeal from Abstract 24886.

FEBRUARY 16, 1934

F. F. G. Harper Co. v. United States (No. 3769).-Winches. Appeal from T.D. 46700.

APRIL 5, 1934

The Gevaert Company of America, Inc. v. United States (No. 3756).—Film rolls and film packs. Appeal from Reap. Dec. 3128.

APRIL 6, 1934

C. S. Grant & Co. (Tubize Chatillon Corp.) v. United States (No. 3657).—Bolting cloth. Appeal from T.D. 46181.

1 T.D. 47224.

REVERSED

FEBRUARY 12, 1934

Roger & Gallet, and Guerlain Perfumery Corp. v. United States (No. 3604.)Perfumery. Appeal from Reap. Dec. 2617. Remanded for a new trial.

FEBRUARY 13, 1934

W. E. Miller v. United States (No. 3754).-Gelatin. Appeal from Abstract 25195. Remanded for a new trial.

APRIL 9, 1934.

United States v. Signode Steel Strapping Co. (No. 3736).-Metals (steel bands) Appeal from Abstract 24537.

APRIL 30, 1934

United States v. Friedman & Company, Inc. (No. 3766).—Beads of synthetic resin. Appeal from T.D. 46686. Remanded for a new trial.

AMENDMENTS TO RULES

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 1

The following amendments to the rules were adopted June 6, 1934: Amend rule XXVII by omitting section 3 (d) thereof and by renumbering section 3 (e) as 3 (d).

Amend the general rules of the court by adding a rule to be known as rule VIII (a), as follows:

CITATIONS

Whenever a decision of this court that has been published in the official reports of the court shall be cited in a brief, the reference shall include the volume and page of said official report or of the Federal Reporter wherein the same has been published.

Attest: ARTHUR B. SHELTON, Clerk.

June 6, 1934.

UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS 2

The following amendment to rule VIII (a) (adopted June 6, 1934) was adopted July 25, 1934:

Amend rule VIII (a) of the general rules of the court by substituting the following language therefor:

CITATIONS

Whenever a decision of this court shall be cited in a brief, the reference shall include the volume and page of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports or of the Federal Reporter wherein the same has been published. Attest: ARTHUR B. SHELTON, Clerk.

July 25, 1934.

1 T.D. 47112.

T.D. 47202.

619

INDEX-DIGEST, VOLUME 21

Abatement of duties:

Where, as a result of an accidental fire and explosion upon the import-
ing vessel while it was within the limits of the port of New York, causing
said vessel to sink, imported knitting machines sustained damage by
corrosion, rust, discoloration, etc., estimated by the appraiser at 70
per centum, abatement of duties to this extent was properly allowed
under section 563. A. Hofmann, Inc., v. United States (1922) _ _ _ _

Paragraph 400, providing that no allowance should be made for
damage "in consequence of rust or discoloration" upon any article of
iron or steel, refers to claims for abatement of duties for rust and dis-
coloration during the course of the voyage, and is not a limitation upon
section 563, which provides for abatement of duties on merchandise
destroyed or damaged while in customs custody by unavoidable casualty.
A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United States (1922)_.

It is assumed that the customs officials, in reporting that the goods
were damaged to the extent of 70 per centum, included in such estimate
only such damage as was directly occasioned by the casualty, and that
there was not included therein any amount for rust or discoloration dur-
ing the course of the voyage, there being no evidence to overcome this
presumption. A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United States (1922)––

The proximate cause of the damage to the imported machinery is
held to have been the accidental fire. A. Hofmann, Inc. v. United
States (1922)----

Accelerometers:

Certain accelerometers, containing a weight in a spring, the weight
being attached to a stylus which moves up and down when the weight is
moved, the stylus pressing against a celluloid ribbon which is moved
forward by a spring motor, the stylus recording on the ribbon the move-
ments of the weight, were imported under the Tariff Act of 1922 and
under the Tariff Act of 1930. Those under the 1922 act are for deter-
mining vertical or horizontal acceleration of any moving body to which
they are attached, or the vibrations of such moving body. Those under
the 1930 act are used for determining rotational acceleration and vibra-
tion. Held, that the devices imported under the 1922 act are dutiable
under paragraph 368 as "any device or mechanism having an essential
operating feature intended for
regulating or controlling the
speed of arbors, drums, disks * * *" since the speed of the drum
which moves the ribbon is regulated by an essential operating feature
contained in the device, the drum being a part of the device itself; they
are not dutiable as machines under paragraph 372 of said act. Those
imported under the 1930 act are dutiable as machines under paragraph
372, and not under paragraph 368 (a) as any mechanism, device, or instru-
ment intended or suitable for measuring time, distance, speed, fares, or
similar uses, or for recording, indicating, or performing any operation or
function at a predetermined time or times, it not being shown that the

* *

Page

431

431

431

431