Ameliotex, Inc. v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 77-10. |
| Citation | 565 F.2d 674 |
| Parties | AMELIOTEX, INC., Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Rode & Qualey, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant; John S. Rode, New York City, of counsel.
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., David M. Cohen, Chief, Customs Section, New York City, Bruce M. Mitchell, Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, 426 F.Supp. 556, 77 Cust.Ct. ___, C.D. 4673 (1976), holding that certain elastomeric fibers known as "Sarlane" were properly classified as monofilaments under items 309.03 or 309.06, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), as modified by T.D. 68-9, depending on the denier of the fiber, rather than grouped filaments under item 309.31, as claimed by appellant. We affirm.
Schedule 3, Part 1, TSUS, covers, among other things, textile fibers. Subpart E provides in pertinent part:
309.03 Valued over 80 cents per pound . . 35% ad val.
309.06 Valued over 85 cents per pound . . 24% ad val.
309.31 Valued over 80 cents per pound . . 14 1/2% ad val.
Sarlane, the trade name for appellant's product, is a spandex1 fiber used in foundation garments, waistbands, sportswear, and sport hosiery. It is produced by extrusion of a polymeric product through a spinerette followed by passing the individual filaments through an extraction bath to remove solvent. The filaments are then gathered into bundles of eighteen and passed through a dryer maintained at 190° to 195°C. A slight tension is maintained on the filaments throughout the drying process. The bundle is then lubricated, wound, inspected, and shipped to customers. The finished product maintains its integrity as a coherent bundle and resists splaying. At trial, the parties concentrated on the drying step, with the Government contending that at this elevated temperature, albeit below the melting point of the polymer (about 240° to 245°C), fusing or bonding of the individual filaments to each other occurred; whereas, appellant argued that the filaments merely cohered at certain points along the length of the finished product. Both parties presented testimony of expert witnesses as well as photomicrographs of the product.
The Customs Court observed that the statutory definition of "monofilaments" in headnote 3(b) is not limited to single filaments, but also includes "single filaments . . . produced from two or more filaments fused or bonded together," and concluded that, if fusing or bonding had occurred, the imported merchandise was correctly classified and the protest had to be denied. After reviewing the testimony of both parties, the court accepted that of the Government's witness, Dr. Couper, who stated that at the points of contact the filaments were "coalesced, which is to become unitary," and that
The court noted that appellant had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government's classification was incorrect; but that appellant's witnesses could not deny the existence of the phenomena that caused Dr. Couper to conclude that the filaments had "coalesced" or "fused," particularly their incapability of being separated without causing a "webbing" or "tearing." Accordingly, the court concluded that individual filaments in Sarlane "have been fused or bonded together in the process of its production" and denied the protest.
Appellant initially urges that the Customs Court bypassed the threshold issue of whether Sarlane is a single filament. It contends that in order to be properly classifiable as a "monofilament," the individual filaments in Sarlane would have to be fused or bonded together into a single filament.2 However, such a restrictive interpretation of the headnote 3 definition of "monofilament" would render the "bonded" portion of the definition superfluous, since "bonded" filaments could not form a single, unitary filament. Fusing is a chemical joining to become unitary,3 as opposed to bonding, in which there is a joining but not a unification.4 Congress is presumed not to have used superfluous words in a statute. Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad, 99 U.S. 48, 58, 25 L.Ed. 424 (1878).
Such a restrictive interpretation would also be contrary to the commercially understood meaning of "monofilament"; whereas, the terms in tariff acts presumably carry the meaning given them in trade and commerce. Barnebey-Cheney Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 553, 61 CCPA 10, C.A.D. 1110 (1973); Hummel Chemical Co. v. United States, 29 CCPA 178, C.A.D. 189 (1941). Moreover, the Tariff Classification Study, Schedule 3 at 515 (1960), clearly indicates that Congress was made aware that certain spandex filaments had been produced which, although originating in production as multiple filaments, were caused to so coalesce or adhere to each other that the finished product was utilized by the textile industry as a monofilament.
Although, as pointed out by appellant, Congress was made aware of such functional monofilaments in a proposed amendment by the Man-Made Fiber Producers Association (MFPA) to the definition of "grouped filaments" to exclude such functional monofilaments from that item, and did not adopt the amendment, we are not persuaded that this evidenced Congressional intent to include filaments such as Sarlane under the "grouped filaments" item. While the MFPA proposal was not accepted, the definition of "monofilaments," which theretofore had been restricted to single, unitary filaments,5 was amended to embrace "filaments fused, or bonded together," as now provided. Also, we note the similarity of the language in the MFPA proposal6 ("coalesce" and "adhere") to the headnote language of "fused" (equated by appellant's own witness with "coalesced"7) and "bonded" (synonymous with "adhere"8). It is clear that Congress, instead of adopting the MFPA proposal to exclude functional monofilaments from the "grouped filaments" classification, broadened the definition of "monofilaments" to embrace such products.
Appellant further argues that Sarlane is not a "functional monofilament" because "it exhibits characteristics of a true multifilament in that its fibers act independently." However, the issue is whether the individual filaments in Sarlane are "fused, or bonded together," not whether they exhibit multifilament characteristics.
Dictionary definitions of "fused" and "bonded," supra notes 3 and 4,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. U.S.
...reliance upon Platt v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 U.S. 48, 58, 9 Otto 48, 25 L.Ed. 424 (1878) and Ameliotex, Inc. v. United States, 65 C.C.P.A. 22, 565 F.2d 674 (Cust. & Pat. App.1977), which stand for the proposition that all the words within the statute must be given meaning, as well as Pennsy......
-
Marcor Development Corp. v. US
...offal" and "blood," the provision obviously sought to encompass more than merely the flesh of animals. See, Ameliotex, Inc. v. United States, 565 F.2d 674, 677 (Cust.Pat. App.1977) ("Congress is presumed not to have used superfluous words in a Inclusion of the term "meat offal" in the provi......
-
Bolding v. United States, 345-73 to 349-73 and 351-73.
... ... The payroll taxes in question are owed by three corporations, Gulf Aerospace Corporation (Gulf) and two of its subsidiaries, Circuit Products, Inc. (Circuit) and Vernor Manufacturing Company (Vernor Manufacturing). All three failed to pay over to the Government their withheld payroll taxes for ... ...
-
Permagrain Products, Inc. v. United States
...are written in the language of commerce, and the terms used are to be given their commercial or common meaning. See Ameliotex, Inc. v. United States, 65 CCPA 22, 25, C.A.D. 1200, 565 F.2d 674, 677 (1977). Accordingly, the court may consider expert testimony adduced at trial to determine whe......