Control Data Corporation, A.R.D. 310- 274 Equipment Importers, Inc., A.R.D. 305 248 Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. and Rattancraft of California, A.R.D. 262 Paredes, Joseph A., & Co., a/c Andrew D. Darvas Co., A.R.D. 309_. Powell, C. H., Co., Inc., A.R.D. 307.- 257 Rattancraft of California and Harper, Robinson & Co. et al., A.R.D. 308. 262 Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al., C.R.D. 72-22- Heterochemical Corp., C.R.D. 72-20_. Intercontinental Fibres, Inc., C.R.D. 72–27. Modelli Imports, Ltd., et al., C.R.D. 72–23. Morey Machinery Company, Inc., C.R.D. 72-17-- Shannon Luminous Material Company, C.R.D. 72–21. *All dispositive opinions promulgated under the Rules of the Customs Court effective October 1, 1970, are CASES REPORTED IN FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT Aceto Chemical Co., Inc. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 135, C.D. 4066; 348 F. Supp. 1134 Adler, Kurt S., Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 162, C.D. 4354; 343 F. Supp. 943 American Express Co. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 209, C.D. 4395; 350 F. Supp. 1402 Authentic Furniture Products, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 204, C.D. 4362; 343 F. Supp. 1372 Barr Shipping Company, Inc., United States v., 68 Cust. Ct. 332, A.R.D. 303; 344 F. Supp. 524 Batlin, L., & Son, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct.14, C.D. 4365; 345 F. Supp. 996 Border Brokerage Co., Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 4383; 349 F. Supp. 1011 Border Brokerage Company, Inc. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 277, C.D. 4089; 343 F. Supp. 1396 Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc., et al. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 249, A.R.D. 306; 348 F. Supp. 723 Cannon Point Manufacturing, Inc., et al. and Townley Shirts, Inc., New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy for, v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 319, A.R.D. 301; 342 F. Supp. 745 Carr, John V., & Son, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 78, C.D. 4377; 347 F. Supp. 1390 Concord Electronics Corp. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 241, A.R.D. 304; 345 F. Supp. 1000 Corpus Company et al. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 170, C.D. 4390; 350 F. Supp. 1397 Dollar Trading Corp. v. United States, 67 Cust. Ct. 308, C.D. 4290; 349 F. Supp. 1395 E. S. Novelty Co. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 374, C.R.D. 72–10; 343 F. Supp. 1364 Estee Candy Co., Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 384, C.R.D. 72-12; 343 F. Supp. 1362 Ford Motor Company v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 114, C.D. 4380; 349 F. Supp. 532 Heterochemical Corp. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 314, C.R.D. 72-20; 349 F. Supp. 998 International Seaway Trading Corp. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 58, C.D. 4375; 349 F. Supp. 1019 Maiden Lane Trading Corporation v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 183, C.D. 4357; 343 F. Supp. 1366 Morey Machinery Company, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 303, C.R.D. 72–17; 349 F. Supp. 1017 Myers, F. W., & Co., Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 4370; 345 F. Supp. 1006 New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy for Townley Shirts, Inc. and Cannon Point Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 319, A.R.D. 301; 342 F. Supp. 745 Pistorino & Company, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 48, C.D. 4373; 350 F. Supp. 1392 Royal Bead Novelty Co., Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 154, C.D. 4353; 342 F. Supp. 1394 Rubberset Company, The, and Sherwin-Williams Company, The, v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 370, C.R.D. 72-9; 342 F. Supp. 749 Shannon Luminous Material Company v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 317, C.R.D. 72-21; 349 F. Supp. 1000 Sherwin-Williams Company, The, and Rubberset Company, The, v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 370, C.R.D. 72–9; 342 F. Supp. 749 Top Form Brassiere Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 288, R.D. 11770; 342 F. Supp. 1167 Tower, C. J., & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 299, C.R.D. 72-15; 347 F. Supp. 1388 Tower, C. J., & Sons of Buffalo, Inc., a/c Metco, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 377, C.R.D. 72-11; 343 F. Supp. 1387 Townley Shirts, Inc. and Cannon Point Manufacturing, Inc., et al., New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy for, v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 319, A.R.D. 301; 342 F. Supp. 745 Verrazzano Trading Corp. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 307, C.R.D. 72–19; 349 F. Supp. 1401 Vicki Enterprises, Inc., United States v., 68 Cust. Ct. 324, A.R.D. 302; 343 F. Supp. 1381 Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 190, C.D. 4358; 343 F. Supp. 1394 Young, H. M., Associates, Inc. v. United States, 69 Cust. Ct. 155, C.D. 4388; 349 F. Supp. 1007 DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT Protests (C.D. 4363) FOOT WIN SHOE CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES Footwear MOLDED SOLES LACED TO UPPERS Footwear invoiced as "Squaw boot softie" held properly classified under item 700.43 as other leather footwear and not dutiable, as claimed, under item 700.30 as footwear with molded soles laced to uppers. The legislative history and trade understanding show that item 700.30 applies to footwear where the sole is molded prior to being laced to the uppers. United States Customs Court, First Division Protests 69/5457 and 69/5459 against the decision of the district director of customs at the port of Laredo [Judgment for defendant.] (Decided July 3, 1972) Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Rufus E. Jarman, Jr., and Irving Levine of counsel) for the plaintiff. Harlington Wood, Jr., Acting Assistant Attorney General (Frederick L. Ikenson and Martin L. Rothstein, trial attorneys), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges MALETZ, Judge: The question in this case concerns the proper tariff classification of certain footwear described on the invoices as "Squaw boot softie" that was imported from Mexico and entered at the port of Laredo, Texas. The footwear was classified under item 700.43 of the tariff schedules, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as other leather footwear and assessed duty at 19 percent ad valorem. Plaintiff alleges that this classification is erroneous and claims that the imported footwear is properly dutiable at 9 percent ad valorem under item 700.30, (1) as modified by T.D. 68-9, which provides for leather footwear with molded soles laced to uppers. The relevant provisions of the tariff schedules read: The parties have stipulated that the footwear is of leather and that the soles are laced to the uppers. Thus (as the parties agree), the single issue in this case is whether the imported footwear has "molded soles" within the meaning of item 700.30. Plaintiff called two witnesses, the first of whom was Robert Lipson, the general manager of plaintiff, Foot Win Shoe Corp. (Foot Win), a division of the Desco Shoe Corporation of New York (Desco). Its second witness was Samuel L. Asch, vice-president of Desco. Defendant's witness was Martin Nadler, the president of Jo-An Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Jo-An), a manufacturer of all types of moccasin footwear. All the witnesses have had extensive experience in the leather footwear industry, including the manufacture and sale of "squaw boot softies".1 In this connection, plaintiff's witness Lipson, the general manager of Foot Win, has served in a wide range of capacities for footwear companies for 24 years, and at the time of trial had complete responsibility for the manufacture in Mexico of footwear, including that in issue, by Calzado Desco, a company controlled by Desco. His duties included styling, sales, handling of accounts, dealing with suppliers and supervising the manufacturing operation. Plaintiff's second witness, Asch, vice-president of Desco, has been in the footwear business for 42 years and has supervised the manufacture of shoes and styled and designed footwear. He became familiar with molded sole footwear 42 years ago as his first employer, Golo Footwear Corporation, had imported millions of pairs of molded sole shoes known as "Opankin" from Czechoslovakia during the period from 1928 through 1932, and he had |