
    NISHIMOTO TRADING COMPANY, LTD., and Arthur J. Fritz Company, Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
    Customs Appeal No. 74-29.
    United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
    Jan. 23, 1975.
    Edward N. Glad, Glad, Tuttle & White, San Francisco, Cal., attorney of record, for appellants.
    
      APPLICATION OF UNITED OIL MANUFACTURING CO. Cite as 508 3T.2d 1341 (1975)
    Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Steven P. Florsheim, New York City, for the United States.
    Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
   BALDWIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the Customs Court overruling appellants’ claim against the classification of certain merchandise imported from Japan, and described on the invoice as “Japanese style alimentary paste ‘Sapporo Ichiban.’ ” The opinion of the Customs Court, familiarity with which is assumed, appears at 72 Cust.Ct. 53, C.D. 4504 (1974). The Customs Court held that the merchandise was correctly classified by the customs officials as “[e]dible preparations not specially provided for (including prepared meals individually packaged)”, item 182.95 TSUS. Appellants contest the classification and claim the merchandise is properly classifiable under item 182.52 TSUS as “[s]oups, soup rolls, soup tablets or cubes, and other soup preparations.” We affirm.

We find that we have little to add to Judge Re’s careful opinion below. The court heard nine of appellants’ witnesses and eight of appellee’s witnesses. Forty-one exhibits were introduced. The court noted that ,“[e]ven on the question whether saimin or ramen is a soup, or a soup preparation, plaintiffs’ witnesses were divided, and offered varying opinions of doubtful reliability.”

The Customs Court heard the witnesses, judged the credibility of their testimony and the weight to be given thereto. The judgment of the court below will not be disturbed, unless it is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Johnson v. United States, 21 CCPA 129, T.D. 46464 (1933).

Accordingly, the judgment of the Customs Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  