Tropi-Cal v. United States, C.D. 3945

• Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Re
• Citation: 63 Cust. Ct. 518
• Parties: TROPI-CAL <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES.
• Docket Number: C.D. 3945
• Decision Date: 24 December 1969

63 Cust. Ct. 518 TROPI-CAL
v.
UNITED STATES. C.D. 3945 United States Customs Court, First Division.

Page 519

Decided December 24, 1969.

Glad & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad of counsel) for the plaintiff.

William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Robert T. Richardson and Frederick L. Ikenson, trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges

RE, Judge:

The protest in this case is limited to the merchandise described on the invoice as "#5127-TW victorian bed headboard". It was assessed for duty at 17 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, as parts of furniture in chief value of wood. The plaintiff has protested the assessment and maintains that the merchandise is wood furniture under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, and is properly dutiable at 10½ per centum ad valorem.

At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff stated that the merchandise in the case at bar is identical to that in the case of Modernaire Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 438, Abstract 61224 (1957), and the record of the Modernaire Furniture case was incorporated into the record of this case. Although the defendant did not object to the incorporation of the record of that case, no agreement or stipulation was entered into pertaining to the similarity of the merchandise. The official papers were received into evidence, but no witnesses were called and no exhibits were introduced.

The following are the pertinent competing statutory provisions:

Classified under:

Paragraph 412, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108:

 "Furniture, wholly or partly finished, and parts
                 thereof, wholly or in chief value of wood, and
                 not specially provided for:
                 * * * * * * *
                 Parts of any of the foregoing __________ 17% ad val."
                

Claimed under:

Paragraph 412, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108:

 "Furniture, wholly or partly finished, and parts
                 thereof, wholly or in chief value of wood, and
                 not specially provided for:
                 * * * * * * *
                 Other furniture ___________________ 10½% ad val."
                

In the Modernaire Furniture case, this court held that the bed headboards therein in issue were "in the category of `casual, auxiliary, or optional' articles and are accessories to the beds with which they may be used, rather than `integral, constituent, or component' parts,

Page 520

whether considered in a utilitarian or decorative sense." Id. at 440. The court therefore held that the bed headboards in that case were not embraced by the provision for "parts of furniture" under which they were assessed, but were properly dutiable as claimed, under the provision for "furniture". A careful reading of the opinion of Judge Mollison in the Modernaire Furniture case, however, reveals that it is important to ascertain the nature of the particular headboards before they may be properly classified. Hence Judge Mollison quoted key paragraphs from two appellate court decisions. The first was a definition of the term "part" as found in the case of United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 CCPA 322, 324, T.D. 46851 (1933):

"It is a well-established rule that a `part' of an article is something necessary to the completion of that article. It is an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article. * * * [italics quoted]"

The second was a quotation from the case of Peter J. Schweitzer (Inc.) v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 285, 292, T.D. 42872 (1928),...