
    Before the Second Division,
    October 26, 1966
    No. P66/297. —
    No. P66/298. —
    No. P66/299. —
    No. P66/300. — No. P66/301. —
    
      Concord Watch Co., Inc. v. United States, protests 58/25129, etc. (New York). Movado Watch Agency, Inc. v. United States, protests 58/25131, etc. (New York). Eterna Watch Co. of America, Inc. v. United States, protests 59/1077, etc. (New York). Norman M. Morris Corp. v. United States, protests 59/1952, etc. (New York). Louis Aisenstein & Bros., Inc. v. United States, protests 59/13450, etc. (New York). American Rolex Watch Corp. v. United States, protests 61/12, etc. (New York). Julian Holzer et al. v. United States, protests 61/23256, etc. (New York).
    No. P66/302. —
    No. P66/303. —
   Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of watch movements similar in all material respects to those the subject of Benrus Watch Company et al. v. United States (53 Cust. Ct. 28, C.D. 2469), wherein said watch movements were held to be unadjusted and, accordingly, not subject to any additional duty for adjustments, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.  