Phone-Mate, Inc. v. U.S., PHONE-MAT
| Decision Date | 09 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | PHONE-MAT,INC,No. 88-1514,88-1514 |
| Citation | 867 F.2d 1404 |
| Parties | , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Edward N. Glad, Glad & Ferguson, of Los Angeles, Cal., argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Mark S. Sochaczewsky, Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, International Trade Field Office.
Before BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.
We are asked in this appeal to review a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade, reported as Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United States, 690 F.Supp. 1048 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988). It was rendered on summary judgment as there were, and are, no disputed issues of fact. Affirming the Customs Service, the court holds that articles called Phone-Mates are, since 1984, dutiable under item 684.58 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) at 8.5 percent ad val. and not, as the importer contends, under item 688.41 at 4.1 percent. There is no dispute as to the nature of the articles which comprise a telephone, an answering and recording machine, and a digital clock. The court summarizes the applicable statutory provision as follows:
Classified Under:
Schedule 6, Part 5:
Electrical telegraph (including printing and type-writing) and telephone apparatus and instruments, and parts thereof:
Telephonic apparatus and instruments and parts thereof:
* * *
* * *
684.58 Telephone sets and other terminal equipment and parts thereof ................... 8.5% ad val.
Claimed Under:
Schedule 6, Part 5:
Electrical articles and electrical parts of articles, not specially provided for:
* * *
* * *
Other:
688.41 Articles designed for connection to telegraphic or telephonic apparatus or instruments or to telegraphic or telephonic networks ... 4.1% ad val.
After full briefing and oral argument, we agree with the decision of the Court of International Trade (Re, C.J.), and adopt its opinion as our own. As it is published, we need not repeat it here. The appeal is non-frivolous and not without support in the case law, but the Customs Service classification was, and is, correct.
Customs classified the merchandise under a relatively new provision of the TSUS, incorporated in it, with deletion of older material, by section 124 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-573, 98 Stat. 2948, 2955 (Act of Oct. 30, 1984). Chief Judge Re was, therefore, writing on a clean slate in a sense. However, the past in tariff matters it seems can never be entirely disregarded, and appellant raises certain issues as to which we feel a need to express our views while adopting, as we have said, the Re opinion as our own otherwise.
The 1984 amendments adopted item 684.58 to be "subordinate to the superior heading" which is unchanged from prior law. By General Headnote 10(a)(i) "a superior heading cannot be enlarged by inferior headings indented under it but can be limited thereby." The relevant portion of the old superior heading here is:
Electrical telegraph (including printing and typewriting): and telephone apparatus and instruments and parts thereof.
The new inferior heading, 684.58 is:
Telephone sets and other terminal equipment and parts thereof.
The old inferior heading did not add the words "and other terminal equipment." Appellant also says that "terminal equipment" is less inclusive than "Customer Premises Equipment," but shows no reason why the Phone-Mate is not both. It is appellant's position, with some support both in logic and authority, that incorporation of telephones with other equipment to make an "entirety" which was more than a telephone, could not, before 1984, have been classified under the new-old superior heading.
We will state appellant's QED for it a bit more boldly than appellant does: Congress stultified itself in prescribing a new inferior heading which went beyond the scope of the unchanged superior heading and was therefore partly null and void. Congress, it is thought, could not make an entirety, that was comprised of a telephone and terminal equipment, be the same as a telephone only, without amending the superior heading, which it omitted to do.
We think the answer is that Congress is not bound by rules of construction, such as that relating to classification by entireties. If it disregards all the rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ps Chez Sidney v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
...Court may not resolve or try factual issues." Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United States, 12 CIT 575, 577, 690 F.Supp. 1048 (1988), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1404 (Fed.Cir.1989). In order to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact, the court reviews the proffered evidence "in the light......
-
Plexus Corp. v. United States
...judgment." Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United States , 12 CIT 575, 577, 690 F. Supp. 1048, 1050 (1988) (citation omitted), aff'd , 867 F.2d 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Further, "summary judgment in a classification case is appropriate only if ‘the material facts of what the merchandise is and what it do......
-
Puerto Rico Towing & Barge Co. v. U.S.
...aff'd, 239 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir.2001); Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United States, 12 CIT 575, 577, 690 F.Supp. 1048, 1050 (1988), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1404 (Fed.Cir.1989). DISCUSSION PRT argues that the Honcho's repairs in the Dominican Republic are exempted from duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1466(e) because t......
-
Horizon Lines Llc v. United States
...issues on a motion for summary judgment.” Phone–Mate, Inc. v. United States, 690 F.Supp. 1048, 12 CIT 575, 577 (1988), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1404 (Fed.Cir.1989). Instead, it must view the evidence “in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” and draw “all reasonable inferences ... in the nonmovan......