Nightwriter Corporation v. United States
Decision Date | 24 November 1972 |
Docket Number | C.D. 4393 |
Citation | 69 Cust. Ct. 191 |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Parties | NIGHTWRITER CORPORATION <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES. |
Jennings Bailey, Jr., for the plaintiff.
Harlington Wood, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Herbert P. Larsen and Steven P. Florsheim, trial attorneys), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ and RE, Judges
The question presented in this case pertains to the proper classification, for customs duty purposes, of certain merchandise imported from Japan and invoiced as "telescopic penpointers". Plaintiff, in its proposed findings of fact, describes the imported "penpointer" as:
The merchandise was classified by the customs officials as "ball-point pens" under item 760.05 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, and was consequently assessed at the rate of four (4) cents each plus 27 per centum ad valorem.
Plaintiff claims that the merchandise has been erroneously and illegally classified, and should have been properly classified under one of the following three alternative tariff provisions:
(1) as articles of copper, not coated or plated with precious metal, under item 657.35 of the tariff schedules, at a rate of 1.275¢ per pound plus 15% valorem;
(2) as articles of base metals, not coated or plated with precious metal, under item 658.00 of the tariff schedules, at a rate of 18% ad valorem; or
(3) as "hand styluses" under item 710.78 of the tariff schedules, at a rate of 11.25% ad valorem.
The following are the pertinent provisions of the Tariff Schedules of the United States:
Plaintiff notes that there can be no dispute as to the nature of the merchandise. The imported article, represented by plaintiff's exhibit 1, is "the same thing" as defendant's exhibit "A". Admittedly, plaintiff advertises and sells its product as a "penpointer", whereas defendant's exhibit is described, on the case or package that contains it, as a "Pointer Pen". It cannot be questioned that both these exhibits are usable for writing and pointing.
The testimony revealed that, in its imported condition, the telescopic penpointer includes two pointer tips and two ink nibs, i.e., refill cartridges. Testimony was also presented that, because of the poor quality of the ink nibs, plaintiff's telescopic penpointer is seldom, if ever, used for writing. Plaintiff has, at times, replaced defective nibs in the imported merchandise. Refill cartridges may also be purchased. There was also testimony that most purchasers check to see if the penpointer can write.
Although there was testimony that the penpointer is a "gimmick" or "novelty" item, it was not questioned that it is distributed by a distributor-manufacturer of ball-point pens, and is sold in retail stores that sell pens.
The defendant submits that the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified at the trial leaves no doubt that the penpointers are, in fact, ball-point pens. Indeed, the defendant notes that it would seem to be conceded that the penpointers can be used for writing, and are used for writing precisely in the same manner as all other ball-point pens.
Additionally, the defendant indicates that the merchandise is clearly embraced by the definition of ball-point pens as contained in the federal excise tax regulations. This definition, which is the generally accepted definition of a ball-point pen during the relevant period, reads as follows:
"The term `ball point pens' includes any writing instrument of the type having a reservoir, cartridge, or magazine containing a writing compound or fluid that is fed to a ball type writing device when the instrument is in use." Federal Register, March 1, 1960, p. 1777; 26 C.F.R. 48.4201-2(d) (1971).
Plaintiff's claim for the reclassification of the merchandise is premised on the assertion that "the primary function and purpose of the article * * * is as a pointer, and that its utility for writing purposes is at most incidental." The defendant, however, responds that even if plaintiff's assertion were a fact supported by evidence, it would not necessarily prevent the penpointer from being classified under an eo nomine provision which expressly covers "ball-point pens". Defendant adds that it cannot be refuted that the merchandise possesses all of the characteristics and features of a ball-point pen, and that it can, and does in fact, perform as a ball-point pen. Novelty Import Co., Inc. v. United States, 53 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 872 (1966); Romicks International, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
RBW, INC. v. United States
...for deriving the meaning of a term from the meaning of other words with which the questioned term is associated. Nightwriter Corp. v. United States, 69 Cust.Ct. 191, 196-97, C.D. 4393 (1972). As item 735.20 provides for the classification not only of puzzles, but also for game, sport, gymna......