Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, C.D. 4811
| Decision Date | 29 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | C.D. 4811,Court No. 77-4-00579. |
| Citation | 475 F. Supp. 1193 |
| Parties | TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C. (David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, New York City; Sheila N. Ziff, Trial Atty., New York City), for defendant.
The within proceeding is a companion case to the cause of action entitled Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, Cust.Ct., 475 F.Supp. 1183. Pursuant to the stipulation of respective counsel, the entire record thereof has been incorporated in the instant proceeding.
The imported merchandise in issue, described on the relevant invoices as "DIS 611" with or without other descriptive information, was imported by the plaintiff from Taiwan and entered at Dallas/Forth Worth, Texas, on June 15, 1976.
The District Director of Customs at Houston, Texas, classified the said merchandise as watch dials under item 720.40, TSUS, as modified by T.D. 68-9, providing:
Dials and parts thereof Watch and clock dials 720.40 Under 1.77 inches in width 1.2¢ each + 22.5% ad val.
The plaintiff claims that the subject merchandise should be classified under item 685.70, TSUS, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as electrical indicator panels or electrical visual signalling apparatus, providing:
685.70 Bells, sirens, indicator panels, burglar
and fire alarms, and other
sound or visual signalling apparatus
all the foregoing which are
electrical, and parts thereof ..... 4% ad val
At the time of trial of the within action, respective counsel with the approval of the court entered into the following stipulations:
In the consideration of the instant proceeding, it must be acknowledged initially that a solid-state digital watch in which the subject merchandise is an incorporated part is a device by which time is transmitted and made discernible to the human eye. The issue presently before this court is restricted to a determination as to whether the imported merchandise, represented by Plaintiff's Exhibit 25, is a dial of a watch within the purview of item 720.40, TSUS. The court concludes from the evidence presented that the classification determined by the District Director of Customs is in error and, accordingly, cannot be affirmed.
Headnote 1 to Subpart E, Part 2, Schedule 7, Tariff Schedules of the United States, provides:
From the foregoing it is clear that in the subsequent schedules provided for thereunder and as a prerequisite to their respective classifications, only "parts" of watches possessing a "watch movement" are included. Thus, in order for the subject merchandise to be classified as a dial under the provisions of item 720.40, TSUS, the article to which it is alleged to be a part must be determined in the first instance to be a watch within the meaning of the aforequoted headnote, i. e., a watch possessing a "movement."
The headnotes of subpart E define the terms "watch movement" and "clock movement":
In the companion case of Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, Cust.Ct. 475 F.Supp. 1183, the record of which is incorporated herein, this court has determined that the solid-state digital watch (and the module contained therein of which the present merchandise in question is a "part") does not incorporate the transfer of any physical or mechanical motion among its component parts and, accordingly, does not possess a "timepiece movement" within the intendment of the appropriate tariff schedules. A more detailed reiteration of the court's reasoning set forth with particularity in the companion case is deemed unwarranted. Suffice it to merely add, that the subject merchandise, irrespective of its nature, shape or function, cannot be classified as a "part" of a watch within the intendment of the headnote to subpart E in the absence of a preliminary determination and finding that the watch, of which it is a "part," possesses a "timepiece movement." Accordingly, this court deems that its decision in the case of Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, Cust.Ct., 475 F.Supp. 1183, is determinative of and serves to sustain plaintiff's claim in the within proceeding that the classification of the subject merchandise under item 720.40, TSUS, is in error.
In directing our attention to plaintiff's claim that the imported merchandise should be classified under item 685.70, TSUS, it is proper that brief consideration be given to its essential nature and composition. The article, described as a visible light emitting diode (referred to as VLED), is manufactured by a process similar to which a monolithic integrated circuit chip is constructed.1 On a slice of semiconductor material known as gallium arsenide or phosphide, a series of minute chips are defined and "junctions" formed therein by means of an aluminum metalization process. The chips, each approximating the size of the head of a pin, are separated into discrete entities, also referred to as a "bar."
From the unrebutted testimony of professional engineering witnesses, it has been established that all visible light emitting diodes, including the merchandise in question, are constructed in an identical manner. The basic component of a diode is the monolithic chip or bar which has been processed in the manner hereinbefore described. The number of chips or bars, which may be required for the purposes desired, are bonded upon a ceramic substrate through the use of a conductive epoxy. After the attachment of fine gold wires providing a connection between the chip and the substrate, a lens is molded over the respective chips for the purpose of providing magnification as well as protection from the environment. Through the electric currents and impulses provided by the integrated circuit chip within the watch module, the seconds, minutes and hours counted therein are translated into a visual numerical display in the light emitting diode of the solidstate watch.
The testimony adduced herein further reveals that visible light emitting diode displays are used for multiple purposes. Such displays are utilized in: CB radios, TV channel indicators, calculators, clocks, watches, microwave ovens, coffee pots, memory calendars, voltmeters, digital thermometers, and many and sundry other appliances. The number of chips or bars which may be required in a visible light emitting diode are necessarily determined by the desired requirements of the article in which it is to be used. Thus, in calculators which provide for the addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of figures and, accordingly, require a decimal point as well as a computation of numerical figures consisting of large totals, a greater number of chip or bar segments are required.
In the examination of the record herein, it is noted that in the pretrial joint memorandum signed by respective counsel and filed with the court prior to trial under the heading "Agreement On Issues," the following statement is contained:
* * * Defendant agrees with plaintiff that should the Court find the classification as watch dials to have been erroneous, then the proper classification would be under plaintiff's claimed provision, item 685.70, TSUS, for electrical indicator panels and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D & M WATCH CORP. v. US
... ... D & M WATCH CORP., Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... No. 83-12-01775 ... ), aff'd 878 F.2d 1413 (Fed.Cir.1989) or Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 518 F.Supp ... v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 287, C.D. 4811, 475 F.Supp. 1193 (1979), aff'd, 67 CCPA 57, ... ...
-
Belfont Sales Corp. v. US
... ... BELFONT SALES CORP., Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 81-12-01724-S ... movement, when viewed in the light of Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct ... v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 287, C.D. 4811, 475 F.Supp. 1193 (1979), aff'd, 620 F.2d 272, ... ...
-
Marcel Watch Co. v. US, Court No. 83-11-01578.
... ... MARCEL WATCH CO., Plaintiff, ... UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 83-11-01578 ... watch movement when viewed in the light of Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct ... v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 287, C.D. 4811, 475 F.Supp. 1193 (1979), aff'd, 620 F.2d 272 ... ...
-
Belfont Sales Corp. v. US
... ... BELFONT SALES CORP., Plaintiff, ... The UNITED STATES, Defendant ... Court No. 81-12-01724-S ... Schedule 7, Part 2, Subpart E (1980) with Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct ... v. United States, 82 Cust.Ct. 287, C.D. 4811, 475 F.Supp. 1193 (1979), aff'd, 67 CCPA 57, ... ...