Corham Artificial Flower Co. v. United States, C.D. 4109
| Decision Date | 28 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | C.D. 4109 |
| Citation | 65 Cust. Ct. 384 |
| Parties | CORHAM ARTIFICIAL FLOWER CO. <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (E. Thomas Honey of counsel) for the plaintiff.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Peter Jay Baskin, trial attorney), for the defendant.
Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges
These protests, consolidated for the purpose of trial, place in issue the classification of certain articles invoiced as plastic artificial flowers. The merchandise was classified pursuant to item 748.20 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as "[a]rtificial flowers, trees, * * *: [w]holly or almost wholly of plastics." Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable pursuant to item 774.60 of said tariff schedules as other "[a]rticles not specially provided for, of rubber or plastics."
It has been stipulated by the parties that the instant merchandise is not constructed in the same manner as the merchandise which was the subject of Armbee Corporation, W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278, 279 F. Supp. 438 (1968), and Zunold Trading Corporation, Leading Forwarders, Inc. v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279 (1968). In those cases a "snap-on-" method of assembling artificial flowers was held to exclude said flowers from item 748.20 in accordance with the guidelines in headnote 1(iii) of subpart B, part 7 of schedule 7.
The relevant statutory provisions read as follows:
Classified under:
Schedule 7, Part 7, Subpart B of the Tariff Schedules of the United States:
Artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables
grasses, or grains, parts of the foregoing
and articles made of the foregoing (except
articles provided for in item 748.15 or 748.40
of this subpart)
748.20 Wholly or almost wholly of plastics_____ 28% ad val
Claimed under:
Schedule 7, Part 12, Subpart D of the Tariff Schedules of the United States:
Articles not specially provided for, of rubber or
plastics
* * * * * * *
774.60 Other _______________________________ 17% ad val
The record establishes that the importations are made of a rigid plastic possessing glass-like translucent qualities and are marketed under the trade name "Crystalin". The importations have the appearance of leaves and flowers and although they are not botanically exact copies of real plants, they bear a marked resemblance to certain flowers. They are used for decorative purposes.
The exhibits in a case such as this are particularly important. An examination of the exhibits representing the importations reveals that they conform in all respects to this court's understanding of the term artificial flowers. They resemble natural flowers and are utilized for the same purposes. Marshall Field & Co. v. United States, 45 CCPA 72, C.A.D. 676 (1958). There is no requirement that "artificial flowers" be exact simulations of natural flowers in color or botanical details. It is sufficient that they possess general physical characteristics associated with natural plants such as leaves, stems and flowers sufficient to generate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc. v. United States, C.R.D. 72-5
...pursuant to rule 14.8(c) of the rules of this court. They had originally been suspended pending a decision in Corham Artificial Flower Co. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 384, C.D. 4109 (1970). After that case was decided on October 28, 1970, they were transferred to the suspension dispositi......