Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | C.D. 3881 |
| Citation | 63 Cust. Ct. 96 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
| Parties | ROBERT BOSCH CORP. <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES. ARTHUR J. FRITZ & CO. <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES. |
Glad & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle of counsel) for the plaintiffs.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Sheila N. Ziff and Peter Jay Baskin, trial attorneys), for the defendant.
Before RAO, FORD, and NEWMAN, Judges
The two protests here involved which were consolidated for trial relate to certain electrical equipment imported from West Germany. In issue are three different types of articles, all assessed with duty at the rate of 17.5 per centum ad valorem, as electrical switches within the purview of item 685.90 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (hereinafter referred to as TSUS).
It is claimed in the protests, or by amendment thereto, that the articles designated as flasher units and back-up light assembly kits are more specifically provided for in item 683.65 of said TSUS, as parts of electrical lighting equipment for motor vehicles, at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem, and that the article invoiced as starter solenoid switch is also dutiable at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem, as electrical starting and ignition equipment for internal combustion engines, as provided in item 683.60 of said TSUS.
An alternative contention that the flasher unit is provided for in item 685.70 as visual signalling apparatus, at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem has not been pressed, and is, therefore, deemed abandoned.
The relevant statutory language reads as follows:
Samples illustrative of the imported articles, together with certain descriptive material indicating the placement and functions of these units were introduced into evidence and it appears not to be disputed that they are automotive equipment parts for Volkswagens.
The sole witness in the case was Mr. Wilmer McFadgen, service manager of Robert Bosch Corp., one of the plaintiffs herein, who had worked for the company for 11 years, and had 14 years previous experience in the same field. His testimony may be summarized as follows:
Robert Bosch Corp. is an importer of automotive, electrical and radio equipment from its "home plant" in Stuttgart, Germany. This equipment is marketed in the United States through distributors. The service manager supervises personnel who install and repair these items and also conducts a school for distributors wherein he teaches subjects covering automotive, electrical and diesel fuel injection equipment including courses on starters, generators and alternators, and tape recorders. The witness had personally repaired the ignition and electrical systems of Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo and Issetta automobiles, and was, at the time of trial, engaged in rebuilding a Volkswagen engine for himself.
Bosch in Germany is an original equipment manufacturer for certain makes of automobiles and provides inter alia starters, generators, coils, spark plugs, distributors, ignition switches and windshield wipers for Volkswagens.
The subject flasher unit identified as item number 0336150009 on entry 45117 and number 336251003 on entry 30930 is purportedly represented in the record by plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 1 and 2. It appears, however, that although exhibit 2 was identified as item No. 336251003, it is in fact item No. 336150010. We advert to this discrepancy since counsel for the government has urged a failure of proof with respect to item No. 336251003. But inasmuch as testimony of the witness establishes that 009, 003, and 010 (plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 3) differ only in terminal features, but are identical in internal construction and operation, we are not inclined to consider the discrepancy as significant.
These articles are primarily Volkswagen flasher units which cause the directional lights to blink. With the aid of plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 3 which has been opened to reveal its interior construction and plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 4, a block diagram of the unit, the witness described the mechanisms and function of the system as follows: a directional turn indicator switch is mounted on the steering post by the manufacturer. It has a control light which indicates whether the signal is left or right. The switch in issue controls the front and rear lights and the blinker unit. When the turn indicator switch is pulled down for a left turn, for example, it energizes a coil or magnetic switch, and electricity flows through the blinker unit. A little pair of contacts in the blinker unit closes the circuit and applies current to the front and rear lights. When the current flow heats a bimetal piece of wire, the wire relaxes and because the magnetic field can no longer overcome it, the contact snaps open, then it cools and contact is reestablished. The cycle repeats itself, depending upon its load capacity, from 45 to 60 times a minute. As a result the lights blink on and off indicating the direction in which the car is turning. The sole function of the blinker light is to signal the intent to turn, and the unit in issue is strictly an automotive piece.
On cross-examination the witness admitted that he would call exhibits 1 and 2 magnetic switches and that they are devices used to make or break electrical circuits for the purpose of signalling. He further characterized this item as electrical apparatus which connects the current to the lights.
Item No. 0331400019 of protest 67/67367 is described in the record as a starter solenoid switch. It is represented by plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 5 and depicted by photograph and diagram in plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 6 and 7. According to the witness the starter solenoid switch by means of two internal windings activates the starter motor which in turn starts the engine. When the ignition key is turned the pull-in winding simultaneously sucks in the steel core of the solenoid and shifts the starter into gear with the flywheel teeth. When the core touches the two contacts at the back end of the solenoid, electrical power from the battery goes across the contacts in the solenoid into the starter motor which then turns over. When the key is released, the core falls back automatically and the engine should be operating. The engine could not be started unless the mechanical function of engaging the teeth in the flywheel is performed. The solenoid switch is always mounted on the starter, and it, or a substitute device, is essential to its operation. Both the solenoid and the starter are designed to be used together in a single housing.
While the witness usually refers to this article as a starter solenoid, he agreed, on cross-examination, that the manufacturer in its literature (plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 7) calls it a solenoid switch, and that it makes and breaks electrical circuits. However, he insisted that this function alone is meaningless without the additional action of engaging the starter into the flywheel teeth.
The witness defined a solenoid as "an electro magnet with a bar of steel in the center, which is held off center by a spring, that when energized, the steel trys [sic] to reach an equalibrium [sic] within the field."
With respect to the switch set, identified as item number SH/LG 5 Sort 32, invoice number 0343199028, and represented in the record, physically as plaintiffs' collective illustrative exhibit 8, and graphically as plaintiffs' illustrative exhibit 9, the witness testified that it is a back-up light kit, consisting of a bracket with a hole which holds the actual light, not included in the kit, a back-up light switch bracket which holds the switch, and a clamping bracket which goes over the shift. When the unit is assembled it is connected by wires.
The light goes on when the pick-up current from underneath the dash flows through the back-up light switch and into the back-up light which is mounted on the rear bumper. When the car is in reverse the bracket is shifted against the switch, making contact therewith, and this in turn lights the lamp and keeps it lit as long as the car is in reverse. When the transmission is released, the light goes out. The purpose of this kit is to light the back of the bumper so that the driver can see when he is backing up.
Although there is no reason why the switch could not be sold separately, the witness did not know that it ever was, since he knew of no other use than with this particular kit.
In contending that the flasher units and back-up light assembly kits are "Electric lighting equipment designed for use on motor vehicles, and parts thereof" within the meaning of item 683.65, TSUS, plaintiffs assert that since both units are used as apparatus for supplying light for the directional system and for a rear lamp, respectively, they fall within the common meaning of the terms "lighting" an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 81-1-00048.
...exclude the cab. What is more, the difference between a cab chassis and a chassis is quite significant. In Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 96, 103-04, C.D. 3881 (1969), this court elaborated on that The principle is well settled that where an article is in character or func......
-
Rollix Bearing, Inc. v. US, Court No. 85-11-01575.
...and power from the input member to the output member. Tr. at 136, 182. "More Than" Issue The government relies on Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 96, 103, C.D. 3881 (1969), in which the court decided that where an article is significantly more diversified than as described ......
-
Fedtro, Inc. v. United States
...60 CCPA 113, C.A.D. 1091 (1973); Fedtro, Inc. v. United States, 449 F.2d 1395, 59 CCPA 16, C.A.D. 1028 (1971); Robert Bosch Corp. et al. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 96, C.D. 3881 THE ISSUE The legal question to be determined is whether, regardless of the battery testing feature, the impor......
-
Sanyo Elec. Inc. v. United States, C.D. 4855
...Consequently, the power failure light is "more than" a flashlight, as classified by the customs officials. In Robert Bosch Corp. et al. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 96, 103-104, C.D. 3881 (1969), this court described the "more than" principle of customs law as "The principle is well settle......