Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Division of the Boston Metals Co. v. United States, C.D. 3989
| Decision Date | 03 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | C.D. 3989 |
| Parties | BALDT ANCHOR, CHAIN & FORGE DIVISION OF THE BOSTON METALS CO. <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES ALBERT F. MAURER COMPANY <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton deC. Tompkins of counsel) for the plaintiffs.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Robert Richardson and John A. Winters, trial attorneys), for the defendant.
Before RAO, FORD, and MALETZ, Judges
This case involves two protests against the tariff classification of certain machinery used in the process of making heavy anchor steel chains for vessels. The machinery was imported from Sweden through the port of Philadelphia in two separate shipments. The first shipment, which was entered in April 1958, contained a heavy-duty transport system which conveyed the partially manufactured chains from one manufacturing station to the next. The second shipment, which was entered in May 1958, consisted of five machines to be used in the production of the chains. This latter shipment was comprised of (1) an electrical resistance heater, (2) a hydraulic bending machine, (3) an automatic flash welding machine, (4) a clamping device, and (5) a hydraulically operated stud press.
The government classified the merchandise involved in the first shipment, i.e., the heavy-duty transport system, as other articles having as an essential feature an electrical device or element, not specially provided for, under paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, T.D. 52739, and assessed duty at the rate of 13¾ percent ad valorem. Plaintiffs protested (protest 62/8017), claiming that the "merchandise is properly dutiable at 11% under Par. 353."
The merchandise covered by the second shipment was classified by the government as follows:
Article Tariff Provision Duty
1. Electrical Par. 353, as modified, T.D. 12½%
resistance 52739 (electric heater)
heater
2. Hydraulic Par. 372, as modified, T.D. 15%
bending 51802 (machine tools)
machine
3. Automatic flash Par. 353, as modified, T.D. 11%
welding 54108 (electric welding
machine apparatus)
4. Clamping Par. 372, as modified, T.D. 12%
device 54108 (machine nspf)
5. Hydraulically Par. 372, as modified, T.D. 15%
operated stud 51802 (machine tools)
press
Plaintiffs protested (protest 62/10442) these classifications claiming that "the articles should be classified as an entirety with duty at 11% under Par. 353 ()."
Quoted below are the pertinent provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930:
By way of introduction, it is to be noted that at the trial plaintiffs contended that the two shipments constituted an entirety consisting of the integral parts of a single electrical welding apparatus used to manufacture heavy anchor chains. However, in their brief, plaintiffs recognized that the articles under protest were not all imported in the same shipment and that their classification as an entirety was therefore precluded. See e.g., University of Chicago v. United States, 2 Cust. Ct. 358, C.D. 159 (1939); James G. Wiley v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 331, C.D. 2645 (1966). For this reason, plaintiffs now argue that all the imported merchandise is properly classifiable as parts of welding apparatus under paragraph 353, dutiable at 11 percent ad valorem. Defendant, on the other hand, insists that this claim for classification under the parts provision of paragraph 353 is barred on the basis that the protests — which were not amended — are allegedly limited to a claim as an entirety — viz., electrical welding apparatus.
It is, of course, basic that plaintiffs are bound by the specific claims in their protests and that such claims must direct the mind of the collector to the appropriate provision of law under which the claims are made. Davis v. Arthur, 96 U.S. 148, 151 (1877); Bliven v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 205, 208, T.D. 31239 (1911); Mary G. Hutchinson v. United States, 10 Cust. Ct. 48, 49, C.D. 720 (1943); United States v. Troy Laundry Machine Co., 27 Treas. Dec. 550, 551, T.D. 34947 (1914). In this context, it is clear that the protest covering the second shipment (protest 62/10442) claiming that "the articles should be classified as an entirety" is insufficient to sustain a claim under the parts provision of paragraph 353. Accordingly, plaintiffs are limited in that protest to a claim that the five imported machines involved in the second shipment are dutiable as electrical welding apparatus as an entirety.1
We consider now the first protest (protest 62/8017) which reads "[s]aid merchandise is properly dutiable at 11% under Par. 353." It may be noted, in addition, that the merchandise was characterized in the protest itself as "welding equipment and similar merchandise * * * dutiable at 11% under Par. 353." Coupled with that, the consumption entry and the invoice description made it manifest that the equipment was to be used in conjunction with or as part of electrical welding apparatus. In these circumstances, the protest is sufficient inasmuch as it, in context with the entry papers, directed the mind of the collector to the parts provision of paragraph 353, as modified, under which the claim is now asserted.
There is no real dispute as to the facts. They are as follows: All the items under protest were designed to be used and operated together to produce a welded anchor chain by a continuous process; the chain could not be produced in this manner if any of the steps performed by these items were eliminated. The imported items were integrated or coordinated so as to operate together as a unit, and each item was designed for a particular application in the production of a welded anchor chain. The individual items did not have any use except in conjunction with the other imported items to produce welded anchor chains.
The actual manufacturing process is a continuous one by virtue of the transport equipment covered by the first shipment. This equipment consists of a specially constructed revolving turntable with four overhead crane stations, which conveys the material mechanically from one machine station to the other. The five imported machines covered by the second shipment perform the following functions: (1) the electrical resistance heater heats a steel bar to approximately 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit; (2) the link bender bends an end of the bar 180 degrees, then laces or inserts this link into an already manufactured link and forms the bar into a "C" with its two ends abutting; (3) the electric flash welder electrically welds the abutting ends of the "C"-shaped link together into a hot-welded closed link; (4) the clamping device holds the welded link while the extruded metal on the closed link is clipped off by a pneumatic hand-operated chisel which produces a smooth surface around the welded area; and (5) the hydraulically operated stud press contains shaped dies into which the link sides are squeezed until they set the ends of a steel crossbar or stud into position across the center of the link where the weld has been made. This stud is further reinforced by locking protuberances on each end which penetrate into the hot link sides during the squeezing operation. This operation not only adds the studs which prevent the kinking of the chain during its use but also gives the final shape to the anchor chain link.
The five machines imported in the second shipment are dedicated to the production of anchor chains and there is no other known use for these machines except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KMW Johnson, Inc. v. US
...122, 126, C.A.D. 1051, 459 F.2d 1403, 1406-07 (1972); Franklin Indus., Inc. v. United States, 1 CIT 349, 350-51, 1981 WL 2457 (1981)). In Baldt Anchor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed a decision of the Customs Court that had held that the importation of five of the six mach......
-
United States v. BALDT A., C. & FORGE DIV. OF BOSTON METALS CO.
...six machines separately. Accordingly, the judgment of the Customs Court is reversed. Reversed. 1 Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Division of the Boston Metals Co. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 268, C.D. 3989 ...