Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 15 May 1975 |
Docket Number | Customs Appeal No. 74-32. |
Citation | 515 F.2d 782 |
Parties | AVINS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CO., Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Shaw & Stedina, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellant. Charles P. Deem, New York City, of counsel.
Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Joseph I. Liebman, Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Customs Section, New York City, for the United States.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Customs Court* dismissing appellant's protest to the classification of certain stainless steel merchandise. Appellant claims the proper classification of the merchandise to be under TSUS Item 685.25 as unfinished parts of radio reception antennas. The Customs Court held the merchandise was correctly classified as stainless steel wire under TSUS Item 609.45. We affirm.
Tariff Schedules of the United States:
The imported merchandise comprises drawn sections of Type 302 stainless steel wire with a cross-sectional diameter not exceeding 0.703 inch. The wire had been cut to lengths of 12 inches to 26.5 inches pursuant to specifications of appellant's vendees. It is stipulated that one utility of the imported merchandise lies in the manufacture of radio antenna sections. To improve its capability for telescoping freely in a radio antenna, the merchandise was subjected to a close tolerance straightening process after being drawn.
The sole issue before us is whether the Customs Court, after consideration of stipulated facts, erred in holding that the correct classification of the instant merchandise is "wire."
OPINIONAppellant urges that because TSUS Schedule 6, part 2, headnote 1 excludes articles specially provided for elsewhere, the imported merchandise is properly classifiable as unfinished parts of radio antennas. It has been stipulated that appellant sold the merchandise to six customers who used the merchandise to manufacture radio antennas, chamfering one end of the wire and press fitting the other end into a small metal ball.
In American Import Co. v. United States, 26 CCPA 72, 74, T.D. 49612 (1938), the tariff meaning of "unfinished" was stated as follows:
It has long been the generally accepted rule that a thing may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Klockner, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 84-3-00388.
... ... 47 p. 49058 et seq. The list of so-called "Arrangement Products" set forth infra includes, among other products, those subject to classification under Item ... United States v. Philipp Overseas Inc., supra; Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United States, 72 Cust.Ct. 43, C.D. 4503, 376 F.Supp. 879 (1974), reh ... ...
-
Belcrest Linens v. U.S., 84-734
...evidence that the merchandise was capable of other commercial uses--woman's handbags and tops. See, e.g., Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United States, 515 F.2d 782 (CCPA 1975). Finally, citing Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 681 F.2d 778 (CCPA 1982), and Uniroyal, Inc. v. Unite......
-
CTS Corporation v. Cronstoms Manufacturing, Inc.
... ... Patent Appeal No. 74-626 ... United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ... May 15, ... ...
-
ER HAWTHORNE & CO., INC. v. United States
...into a clearly identifiable part of any device," will not be classified as a part of that device. Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United States, 62 CCPA 83, 515 F.2d 782 (1975). See also Terumo-America v. United States, 2 CIT 121 The defendant in support of the classification of the subjec......