Midland International Corporation v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 February 1969
• Docket Number: C.D. 3715,Protest 65/25841-1150.
• Parties: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

295 F. Supp. 1101

MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES.

C.D. 3715; Protest 65/25841-1150.

United States Customs Court, Second Division.

February 18, 1969.

Frederick W. Hess, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

William D. Ruckelhaus, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Bernard J. Babb, New York City, trial atty.), for defendant.

Before RAO and FORD, Judges.

FORD, Judge:

This is an action brought by the timely filing of a protest pursuant to section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, wherein plaintiff contests the classification under item 685.90, Tariff Schedules of the United States,¹ of certain connectors, phone jacks, phone plugs, miniature plugs and jacks, phono plugs and jacks, and similar equipment and consequent assessment with duty at the rate of 17.5 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff contends that the imported connectors, jacks and plugs, etc., which are used in electronic circuits, are not of the class or kind intended to be encompassed by item 685.90, supra, which covers electrical power circuits. Therefore, plaintiff argues, said merchandise is properly subject to duty at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem under the provisions contained in item 685.50, Tariff Schedules of the United States.²

The record establishes without contradiction that the involved plugs, jacks and connectors are generally used for making connections in communication equipment, phonographs, television, radio receiving equipment, dictating machines, tape recorders, microphones, speakers, and various low frequency such as audio-frequency or low-current electronic applications.

The construction of the items makes their use limited to such application, and use in a power circuit would be dangerous since they are not insulated enough to sustain ordinary household electrical power. A low powered circuit was considered by the witnesses as not having over one half ampere. Witness Krahenbuhl denied the imported article consisted of any of the articles named in item 685.90, supra.

It is axiomatic that a classification carries with it a presumption of correctness which may be overcome by competent evidence which establishes the incorrectness of the classification and the correctness of the claimant. United States v. John A. Steer Co., 46 CCPA 132, C.A.D. 715.

In order to overcome this twofold burden, plaintiff has adduced the testimony of two well-qualified technical witnesses who have established to our satisfaction that the imported articles are used in low frequency and low current circuits, such circuits being known as audio circuits. A careful reading of item 685.90 establishes to our satisfaction that all of the articles enumerated therein are for use in power circuits. Merchandise such as involved herein is not ejusdem generis with such articles and would in fact be dangerous for use in power application. Accordingly, we are in agreement with plaintiff that the classification herein is erroneous.

The question of whether plaintiff has established the correctness of its claim presents another problem. Item 685.50 has been the subject of decision in Arthur J. Humphreys, Packard-Bell Electronics, v. United States, 59 Cust. Ct. 231, C.D. 3128, wherein certain wood cabinets, completed for use with...