Channel Master, Div. of Avnet Inc. v. United States

Decision Date29 October 1986
Docket NumberCourt No. 80-5-00802.
Citation648 F. Supp. 10,10 CIT 684
PartiesCHANNEL MASTER, DIV. OF AVNET INC., Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Fitch, King & Caffentzis (Richard C. King), New York City, for plaintiff.

Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Joseph I. Liebman, Intern. Trade Field Office (Saul Davis), New York City, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RE, Chief Judge:

The question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of certain merchandise imported from Japan, and described on the customs invoice as "scanners," which were imported during the years 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977.

The merchandise was classified by the Customs Service as "other solid-state (tubeless) radio receivers," under items 685.23 or 685.24 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), depending upon the date of importation. Consequently, the merchandise was assessed with duty at a rate of 10.4 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff protests this classification and contends that the merchandise is properly classifiable as other radio broadcasting reception apparatus, under item 685.25, TSUS, at a rate of 6 per centum ad valorem.

The pertinent statutory provisions of the tariff schedules are as follows:

                   Classified under
                      Schedule 6, Part 5
                      Radiotelegraphic and radiotelephonic transmission and reception apparatus
                      radiobroadcasting and television transmission and reception apparatus
                      . . .: all of the foregoing, and any combination thereof, whether or not
                      incorporating clocks of other timing apparatus, and parts thereof
                
                            . . . .
                            Radiotelegraphic and radiotelephonic transmission and reception apparatus:
                            radiobroadcasting and television transmission and reception apparatus, and
                            parts thereof:
                            Other:
                    685.23  Solid-state (tubeless) radio receivers .................. 10.4% ad val.
                   685.24  Other .................................................. 10.4% ad val.
                   Claimed under:
                    685.25  Other ...................................................... 6% ad val.
                

The question presented is whether the imported merchandise is dutiable as "other solid-state (tubeless) radio receivers," as classified by Customs, or as other radio broadcasting reception apparatus, as claimed by plaintiffs. In order to decide this issue, the Court must consider "whether the government's classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with the importer's alternative." Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 2 Fed Cir. 70, 75, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (1984).

After an examination of the merchandise, the pleadings and supporting papers, and relevant case law, it is the determination of the Court that plaintiff has not overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to the government's classification, and the action is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (1982); Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 2 Fed.Cir. at 72, 733 F.2d at 876; E.R. Hawthorne & Co. v. United States, 1 Fed.Cir. 42, 52, 730 F.2d 1490, 1490 (1984).

Three different types of scanners were imported, each designed to receive assigned frequencies for various radio services, such as police, fire, and other municipal broadcasts. Because the frequencies for these services vary in each town or city, different crystals allow the user to tune into the desired frequencies of the particular area.

The two smaller scanners, Models CS6258 and CS6790, are completely solid-state, VHF-FM dual conversion portable receivers, and are capable of automatically switching four crystal-controlled channels. These models can be powered either by four "penlight" batteries, or through the use of the external powersocket, which allows the units to be operated from any convenient AC outlet with the use of an optional AC-adaptor. The larger scanner, Model CS6794, is a solid-state, dual conversion FM receiver designed to monitor public service broadcasts. This receiver features 10 channels which can be selected manually or automatically. Model CS6794 can be powered by either an AC outlet or a car battery.

All three scanners require one crystal for each frequency that the user wishes to operate. The crystals may be purchased from a retail dealer, or from the crystal manufacturer, and may be inserted by the owner of the unit. The amount of time and effort necessary to complete the imported scanners into fully operable receivers is governed by the amount of time required by the user to remove the rear compartments, and to insert the crystals into the correct position.

In challenging the Customs Service's classification of the scanners, it is plaintiff's contention that the units do not fall within the common meaning of the eo nomine term "radio receiver," and that Rule 10(h) does not apply in this case.

The defendant contends that the "Customs Service classified these scanners as radio receivers, as they were at least unfinished radio receivers by virtue of Rule 10(h)." Rule 10(h), which has general applicability to the tariff schedules, provides:

unless the context requires otherwise, a tariff description for an article covers such article, whether assembled or not assembled, and whether finished or not finished.

19 U.S.C. § 1202 General Headnotes and Rules of Interpretation 10(h) (1982).

In order to determine whether the imported scanners are unfinished radio receivers, the court must ascertain the common meaning of "radio receivers," as that term is used by Congress in the tariff schedules. The meaning of a tariff term "is presumed to be the same as its common or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Bentkamp v. United States, 40 CCPA 70, 78, C.A.D. 500 (1952), quoted with approval in Rohm & Haas Co. v. United States, 727 F.2d 1095, 1097 (Fed. Cir.1984).

A radio receiver, as that term is used in the tariff schedules, is an eo nomine designation for an article which has been lexicographically and judicially defined as capable of performing three basic functions: selectivity, amplification, and detection. See NEC America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT 184, 187, 596 F.Supp. 466, 470 (1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 1295 (Fed. Cir.1985); General Electric Co. v. United States, 2 CIT 84, 90, 525 F.Supp. 1244, 1248 (1981), aff'd, 69 CCPA 166, 681 F.2d 785 (1982). Absent contrary legislative intent, an eo nomine designation includes all forms of the article. B & E Sales Co. v. United States, 9 CIT ___, Slip Op. 85-22 (1985).

Selectivity is defined as the ability to select a particular frequency from radio signals in the atmosphere. Amplification is the process of increasing the radio frequency energy received by the antenna so that it can be used to generate a signal. Detection is the process by which the radio frequency waves are converted into a signal that can be utilized.

In General Electric Co. v. United States, 2 CIT 84, 525 F.Supp. 1244 (1981), aff'd, 69 CCPA 166, 681 F.2d 785 (1982), pursuant to item 685.23, TSUS, Customs classified certain imported "electronic packs" as unfinished radio receivers. Plaintiff contended that the electronic packs were merely parts of radio receivers, since they were missing "significant and substantial parts," such as a power transformer, power cord, and loudspeaker. Defendant responded that "the chassis were capable of performing the basic functions of a `radio receiver' within the common meaning of that term," and that the classification was proper. Id. at 87, 525 F.Supp. at 1246. The court determined that "the basic functions of a radio receiver are selection, amplification, and detection." Id. The court also determined that the absence of the components did not preclude the application of Rule 10(h). Accordingly, the court held that the merchandise was substantially complete, and was properly classified as unfinished radio receivers. On appeal, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed, and adopted the opinion of the Court of International Trade. See 69 CCPA 166, 167, 681 F.2d 785, 786 (1982).

In NEC America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT 184, 596 F.Supp. 466 (1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 1295 (Fed.Cir.1985), the Customs Service classified imported battery-operated paging receivers as "other solid-state (tubeless) radio receivers," under item 685.24, TSUS. Plaintiff protested this classification, and contended that the merchandise was properly classifiable under item 685.70, TSUS, as "indicator panels and other sound or visual signalling apparatus." Defendant maintained that the pagers were properly classified as "radio receivers" because they performed the basic functions of selection, amplification, and detection. The court sustained the classification, and, relying in part on the General Electric case, held that since the paging receivers were capable of performing those basic functions, the paging receivers were properly classified under item 685.24, TSUS, as radio receivers.

In the present case, the parties have stipulated that the scanners, as imported, do not "have the ability" to perform selection or detection. The scanners, however, do have all the necessary circuitry to perform these functions, and all that is missing from the units that prevents full operation as a radio receiver are the frequency crystals. Moreover, each scanner has a ceramic filter which permits "excellent selectivity." The parties also stipulated that, after the crystals are inserted, the scanners can operate to receive radio broadcasts. Plaintiff contends that since the scanners, as imported, cannot perform the three basic functions of a radio receiver, they do not come within the eo nomine meaning of a radio receiver. It cannot be denied, however, that once the appropriate crystals are inserted, the scanners can perform these three basic functions of selection, amplification, and detection.

It must be noted at the outset that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Simod America Corp. v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • July 28, 1988
    ... ... SIMOD AMERICA CORP., Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 85-5-00649 ... and Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Ass'n, Inc ...         RE, Chief Judge: ... Relying upon Daisy-Heddon, Div. Victor Comptometer Corp. v. United States, 66 ... at 1237-38. Similarly, in Channel Master, Div. of Avnet, Inc. v. United States, 10 ... ...
  • Palos v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 10, 1990
    ... ... 1191 ... P.F. PALOS, Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 85-06-00824 ... See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, ... merchandise is `substantially complete.'" Channel Master, Div. of Avnet, Inc. v. United States, 10 ... ...
  • Channel Master, Div. of Avnet, Inc. v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • November 25, 1987
    ...674 F. Supp. 87211 CIT 876 ... CHANNEL MASTER, DIV. OF AVNET, INC., Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 80-5-00802 ... United States Court of International Trade ... November 25, 1987.        Fitch, King & ... ...
  • Channel Master, Div. of Avnet, Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 12, 1988
    ...856 F.2d 177 ... 10 ITRD 1817, 6 Fed. Cir. (T) 175 ... CHANNEL MASTER, DIV. OF AVNET, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ... No. 88-1213 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Federal Circuit ... Sept. 12, 1988 ...         Richard ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT