H. H. Elder & Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 December 1972
• Docket Number: C.R.D. 72-28
• Citation: 69 Cust. Ct. 344
• Parties: H. H. ELDER & CO. ET AL. <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

69 Cust. Ct. 344

H. H. ELDER & CO. ET AL.

v. UNITED STATES.

C.R.D. 72-28

United States Customs Court.

Dated December 26, 1972.

Glad, Tuttle & White (John McDougall of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

Harlington Wood, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (John V. Henry, trial attorney), for the defendant.

RAO, Judge:

In this motion, plaintiffs seek to suspend all the cases listed on schedule "A", attached to the motion, under Selectile Co., Inc. v. United States, Court No. 68/48202.

At the time the motion was made on October 11, 1972, that case had not been designated as a test case, although a motion for the purpose had been filed on September 25, 1972. Defendant's response to that motion was filed on October 10, 1972, requesting that the designation of the test case be limited to "Cremo Delicato polished marble, measuring 1'0" × 1'0" × 3/8", manufactured by Alberto Bufalini of Carrara, Italy, which was classified under item 514.81, TSUS, as other marble and articles of marble, not specially provided for, and claimed to be classifiable under item 514.65, TSUS, as marble slabs polished in whole or in part." The court, however, by order dated November 14, 1972, granted plaintiff's motion designating the Selectile Co. case as a test case without such limitation.

In response to the motion in the instant case, defendant noted that a motion had been made to designate Selectile Co., Inc. v. United States as a test case and that it had filed its response thereto. It stated further that "plaintiffs' motion for suspension of these cases is premature and the defendant is not required at this juncture to make known its position as to whether the enumerated cases are or are not suspensible under the Selectile Co. case."

Since the Selectile Co. case is now a test case, actions involving an issue of fact or a question of law which is the same as the issue of fact or question of law involved in the test case may be suspended thereunder. Rule 14.7(a).

The purpose of the suspension procedure in this court is to facilitate the disposition of actions, eliminating the necessity of trying the same issue over and over again, and dispensing with the filing of complaints and answers in actions which in all likelihood will never be tried.

The complaint in the Selectile Co. case alleges that the merchandise consists of marble slabs which have been polished in whole or in part, the edges of which have been eased for handling purposes, but have not been beveled or rounded or...