what is known as the "Cotton System." These existing frames can and are still used for the processing of synthetics without any rebuilding or modification of the frames, provided the synthetic fibers are cut to the proper length, except in the spinning process where an adjustment of the drafting zone of the spinning frames may be necessary to accommodate the longer synthetic fibers. No adjustment is necessary on the twister frame, nor is there any requirement for any modification or adjustment of the spindles in either process.

The record further establishes that the imported spindles are used by the United States Rubber Co. in the processing of nylon for use as automobile tire cord. There is a twister frame designed exclusively for synthetics which does two operations at the one time, both plying and cabling. While over 50 percent of the use at United States Rubber Co. is for synthetics, the witnesses testified that the imported spindles were designed for use on cotton spinning or twisting frames. The record also discloses that the witnesses have seen spindles identical to the imported merchandise used to process cotton.

The record further establishes that the synthetic textile industry, in its infancy in trying to develop its market, built its product around the "Cotton System" in order to utilize the existing equipment in the textile mills. It is obvious, as pointed out by Witness McVey, that cotton is a "God-given fiber," having a staple length of about 116 inches.

By virtue of the classification of the collector of customs, plaintiff contends that the following presumptions flow:

1. The spindles are "parts."

2. They are wholly or in chief value of metal.

3. They are parts of machinery for textile processing prior to the making of fabrics.

4. They are not parts of machinery for processing vegetable fibers.

Plaintiff relies upon the first three presumptions under the theory discussed in Walco Bead Co., Inc. v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 62, C.D. 1445, wherein it was held that plaintiff has the right to rely upon the presumptions arising from classification. In addition thereto, defendant, in its brief, agrees that the imported spindles are parts of textile machinery used prior to the making of fabrics, citing Brandon Corporation v. United States, 31 CCPA 149, C.A.D. 266. Accordingly, the issue presented is whether the imported spindles are parts of textile machinery for processing vegetable fibers or fall within the provision "Other," since they are also used on synthetic fibers. The record establishes that the merchandise is not winding, beaming, warping, or slashing machinery, or combinations thereof, which are excepted from the provision claimed herein.

It appears from the record that the imported spindles are replacement parts for the original spindles used on certain "Cotton System" spinning and twister frames. Since the bulk of the items are twister spindles, we will direct ourselves to them first.

The record established, without contradiction, that the machines upon which the imported spindles are used are cotton twister frames which were designed 30 or 40 years ago, and which may be, and the imported spindles are in fact, used for synthetic fibers without any change, modification, rebuilding, or adjustment of either the frames or the spindles. The record further establishes that the synthetic textile industry, in its infancy in order to utilize existing machinery in the mills, followed the "Cotton System." Hence, any synthetic fiber which is cut to the proper length may be twisted on the twister frames for which the imported spindles, such as plaintiff's exhibits 3 and 4, were designed. The mere fact that the imported spindles were sold to a company which is using them for the preparation of synthetic fibers is immaterial. It is not the use of the particular shipment but rather the use of the particular class or type of goods that is controlling. United States v. Spreckels Creameries, Inc., 17 CCPA 400, T.D. 43835.

The evidence adduced herein establishes that the witnesses have by and large visited all the principal textile manufacturing areas in the United States and most, if not all, of the mills which utilize twister and spinning frames. While the use of synthetics is increasing, we are convinced that the spindles were, and are, chiefly used for the preparation of vegetable fibers.

Insofar as the spinning operation is concerned, which may be accomplished by spindles, such as plaintiff's illustrative exhibit 1, the testimony, in conjunction with the statistics of the United States Department of Commerce Bulletins, plaintiff's exhibits 2, 5, and 6, substantiates the fact that the chief use of spinning spindles is for

cotton.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the imported spindles are parts of textile machinery for textile manufacturing or processing prior to the making of fabrics, under the provision of said paragraph 372, as modified and supplemented, supra, "For manufacturing or processing vegetable fibers * * *," which provides for a rate of duty of 10 per centum ad valorem, as claimed by plaintiff herein.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in the involved suits is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise, all the claims are overruled.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

ABSTRACTS OF CUSTOMS COURT DECISIONS

Classification

The following abstracts of decisions of the United States Customs Court at New York are published for the information and guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned.

First Division.-Judges Webster J. Oliver and David J. Wilson.-Second Division. Judges Charles D. Lawrence, Paul P. Rao, and Morgan Ford.-Third Division.-Judges Mary H. Donlon and Scovel Richardson.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, DECEMBER 23, 1963

No. 68190.-Rotel Corp. of America v. United States, protest 62/7286 (New York).

FOOD JUICERS-STEEL HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS-ELECTRICAL ELEMENT OR DEVICETRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 17 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 steel household utensils is claimed dutiable 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 LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of food juicers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65798, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 68191.-John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States, protests 60/19671, etc. (Detroit).

IRON ARTICLES-GRANULar or SponGE IRON-TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 19 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for iron articles is claimed dutiable at 621⁄2 cents per ton under the provision in paragraph 301 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 301), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52462), for granular or sponge iron, plus 35 cents per pound on the molybdenum content in excess of 0.2 percent, under said paragraph, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739). Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of granular or sponge iron similar in all material respects to that the subject of John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States (50 Cust. Ct. 29, C.D. 2384), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

No. 68192.-Scope Instrument Corp. and Julius Feist v. United States, protests 58/4749 and 60/10135 (New York).

ARTICLES-TRADE

MAP MEASURES-MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENTS-METAL AGREEMENT.-Map measures assessed at the appropriate rates, depending upon

221

the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 360, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 360), as modified, for mathematical instruments are claimed dutiable at 221⁄2 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 397 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for metal articles, not specially provided for, or at 19 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108).

Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of map measures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Kaufman & Vinson Co. v. United States (44 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, DECEMBER 23, 1963

No. 68193.-Davies Turner & Co. v. United States, protest 61/16787 (New York). AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED-BOBBINS-CERTIFICATE OF EXPORTATION.-In this protest, 26 cases of bobbins were assessed at 19 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, for the reason that the certificate of exportation was not filed in accordance with the law and regulations. It is claimed that the merchandise is entitled to free entry under paragraph 1615, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, as American goods returned.

Opinion by RICHARDSON, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the applicable customs regulations have now been complied with as to the 12,274 bobbins included in the 26 cases, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Abstract 57104 followed.

No. 68194.-Alexander's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. United States, protest 62/13773 (New York).

SHORTAGE OF MERCHANDISE-NONIMPORTATION.-This protest is against the assessment of duty upon certain merchandise. Such assessment was made because the importer failed to file an affidavit of short shipment.

Opinion by RICHARDSON, J. It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in United States v. Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the case reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the case of merchandise, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, DECEMBER 26, 1963

No. 68195.-American Shipping Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, protests 58/22549, etc. (New York).

COPPER, ENGRAVERS' PLATES, NOT GROUND TRADE AGREEMENT.-Merchandise assessed at 52 cents per pound under the provision in paragraph 381, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 381), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for copper engravers' plates, ground, is claimed dutiable at 32 cents per pound under the provision in said paragraph, as modified, supra, for copper engravers' plates, not ground.

Opinion by LAWRENCE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of copper engravers' plates, not ground, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.