Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Protest No. 67/77598-5832.,C.D. 4060 |
| Citation | 317 F. Supp. 750 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL SHEARING & STAMPING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES (Guadalupe Industrial Supply Company, Inc., Party-in-Interest). |
Kane & Koons, Washington, D. C. (Matthew A. Kane, Washington, D. C., of counsel); Lincoln & Stewart, Washington, D. C., (Eugene L. Stewart, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mollie Strum, New York City, trial attorney), for defendant.
Hall & Juarez, Laredo, Tex., Clemens, Knight, Weiss & Spencer, San Antonio, Tex. (George H. Spencer, San Antonio, Tex., of counsel); Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neeley, Dallas, Tex. (Trevor William Rees-Jones, Dallas, Tex., of counsel), associate counsel; for the party-in-interest.
Before RICHARDSON, LANDIS, and WATSON, Judges.
Plaintiff here sues, as an American manufacturer, for relief under section 516, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C., section 1516), protesting the tariff classification of articles of the class or kind produced by it, imported from Mexico, and described on the entry invoice as steel plates, specifications ASTM A-285-C, cut and pressed to hemispherical shape. The importer, Guadalupe Industrial Supply Company, Inc., the party-in-interest, appears with defendant in defense of the customs classification of the hemispherical articles under the heading "angles, shapes, and sections", dutiable under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 609.80, at the rate of 0.1 cent per pound.
Plaintiff contends that hemispherical shaped articles are not within the class of "angles, shapes, and sections" intended to be classified by TSUS and are properly dutiable as articles of iron or steel, not specially provided for in TSUS, dutiable at 19 per centum ad valorem under TSUS item 657.20.
The complete text of the TSUS classification "angles, shapes, and sections" in schedule 6, part 2, provides as follows:
Subpart B.—Iron or Steel
Subpart B headnotes
1. This subpart covers iron and
steel, their alloys, and their so-called
basic shapes and forms, and
in addition covers iron or steel waste
and scrap
* * * * * *
Angles, shapes, and sections, all the
foregoing, of iron or steel, hot
rolled, forged, extruded, or drawn
or cold formed or cold finished
whether or not drilled, punched
or otherwise advanced; sheet piling
of iron or steel:
Angles, shapes, and sections:
Hot rolled; or, cold formed
and weighing over 0.29
pound per linear foot:
Not drilled, not punched,
and not otherwise advanced:
609.80 Other than alloy iron
and steel ...... 0.1¢ per lb.
609.82 Alloy iron or steel .. * * *
Drilled, punched, or otherwise
advanced:
609.84 Other than alloy iron
or steel ........ * * *
609.86 Alloy iron or steel .. * * *
Cold formed and weighing not
over 0.29 pound per linear
foot:
609.88 Other than alloy iron
or steel ....... 8.5% ad val.
609.90 Alloy iron or steel .. * * *
Sheet piling:
609.96 Other than alloy iron or
steel ............... * * *
609.98 Alloy iron or steel ...... * * *
Plaintiff's claim under schedule 6, part 3, subpart G provides in pertinent part as follows:
Subpart G.—Metal Products
Not Specially Provided
For
Subpart G headnotes:
1. This subpart covers only articles
of metal which are not more
specifically provided for elsewhere
in the tariff schedules.
* * * * * *
Articles of iron or steel, not coated
or plated with precious metal:
Cast-iron articles, not alloyed:
* * * * * *
Other articles:
657.15 Of tin plate .... * * *
657.20 Other .................... 19% ad val.
The record consists of 907 pages of transcribed testimony from thirteen witnesses; eight for plaintiff; one for defendant and four for the party-in-interest. There are 32 exhibits, numbered for the record as plaintiff's exhibits 1 through 22, defendant's exhibits A-1 through A-4, and party-in-interest exhibits I through VI. We shall refer to the exhibits where pertinent to our discussion of the facts. At the outset we can say that exhibit 1 consists of the correspondence between plaintiff and customs officials showing compliance with the jurisdictional requirements for an American manufacturer's protest under section 516, supra. Exhibit 11 is a sample of the hemispherical article imported in this case. Its inside diameter measures 37 inches. The term "hemispherical" denotes that the shape of the article is that of half a sphere formed by a plane through a sphere's center.
Somewhat crucial, yet undisputed as we read the record, are the facts with respect to the process by which these hemispherical articles were produced by Altos Hornos de Mexico, S. A. Monclova Coahuila. Exhibits, modified in size for convenience in handling, illustrate the changes which took place in the form and shape of the metal used in that process. To start with a rectangular piece of ASTM 285 grade C flat steel plate, produced in a hot rolling process but which, when used, is a piece of plate metal in a cold state or condition (exhibit 2), is cut into a round or circular piece of flat steel plate (exhibit 3). The circular piece of plate is placed in a hydraulic press and the surface of the plate is lubricated to facilitate the pressing process which follows. As the press is engaged, it presses a male die into the circular plate causing the metal to plastically deform into a female die and cold form the hemispherical shape which, when removed from the press, has around its base a horizontal collar or flange (exhibit 4). The flange, which is cut off, has no useful purpose and is discarded as waste or scrap metal. When the lubrication is washed off, the hemispherical article is ready for shipment (exhibit 6).
The issue is whether the imported article, produced in the process described above, is within the class of "angles, shapes, and sections" hot rolled or, cold formed and weighing over 0.29 pound per linear foot, not drilled, not punched, and not otherwise advanced, dutiable under TSUS item 609.80.
Plaintiff argues that a hemispherical article is not within the class of "angles, shapes, and sections" covered by schedule 6, subpart B because Congress intended to limit the term "angles, shapes, and sections" to angles, shapes, and sections produced in a basic steel mill and to exclude articles further advanced in condition by a process of manufacture in a so-called fabricating plant. On this record, we are of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the customs classification under TSUS item 609.80 and overrule the protest. Kaysing v. United States, 49 CCPA 69, C.A. D. 798 (1962).
There is little or no ground for quarrel with plaintiff's statement that the intrinsic structure of TSUS schedule 6 discloses an intent on the part of Congress to provide a classification system based upon "the state of advancement of metal articles" (plaintiff's brief, page 86). To say that, does no more than recognize that "Schedule 6 provides for a logical arrangement of metals and metal products and takes cognizance of the many developments in metals and metal products since 1930."1 What we take exception to is plaintiff's contention that the classification in part 2 of schedule 6 provides only for metal in primary forms, including "angles, shapes, and sections", "produced in basic iron and steel mills" (plaintiff's brief, page 86, emphasis added).
The purpose of part 2, schedule 6, was to cover completely, in an organized systematic manner, the classification of base metals.2 Subpart B of part 2, schedule 6, covers iron and steel, their so-called basic shapes and forms and in addition covers iron or steel waste and scrap. It "sets forth in an orderly systematic arrangement the provisions which would apply to * * * those products", and, in effect, brings together "the existing provisions * * * set forth in paragraphs 5, 301-317, 319, 322, 327, 328, 335, 389, 397, and 1786" of the Tarriff Act of 1930.3 An important and new feature of TSUS, not contained in any of the earlier tariff acts, is the system of legal interpretative headnotes intended to clarify the relationships between the various classification descriptions. The headnotes are in close proximity to the tariff classification to which they relate. Where the headnotes relate to an entire schedule such as schedule 6, they are schedule headnotes. When they relate only to a part, such as part 2, they are part headnotes. Subpart B of part 2, schedule 6, contains its own related headnotes.4 There, in subpart B, the relationship of the TSUS classification "angles, shapes, and sections" to the other so-called basic shapes and forms of iron and steel, classified in subpart B, is explained in a legal headnote as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klockner, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 84-3-00388.
... ... Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, New York City (Kenneth N. Wolf, New York City, at the trial and on the brief), ... sections, prior to being readied for shipment they are cut to so-called usage lengths by a shearing machine. These must be cut with a tolerance of plus or minus three millimeters. The rim sections ... Baron Tube Co., et al., 47 CCPA 69, C.A.D. 730 (1960); Commercial Shearing & Stamping Co. v. United States, 65 Cust.Ct. 91, C.D. 4060, 317 F.Supp. 750 (1970), aff'd, 59 CCPA 203, C.A.D ... ...
-
Tuscany Fabrics, Inc. v. United States
... ... Supp. 744 part of the entire article, does not enhance its value, and has no commercial purpose is disregarded for classification purposes. John S. Connor, Inc. v. United States, 54 ... ...
-
PISTORINO & COMPANY, INC. v. United States
... ... Commercial Shearing & Stamping Company v. United States (Guadalupe Industrial Supply Company, Inc., Party in ... ...
-
Philipp Overseas, Inc. v. United States
... ... United States v. Baron Tube Co. et al., 47 CCPA 69, 71, C.A.D. 730 (1960); Commercial Shearing & Stamping Company v. United States, (Guadalupe Industrial Supply Company, Inc., ... ...