United States v. BALDT A., C. & FORGE DIV. OF BOSTON METALS CO.
Decision Date | 25 May 1972 |
Docket Number | Customs Appeal No. 5417. |
Citation | 59 CCPA 122,459 F.2d 1403 |
Parties | The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. BALDT ANCHOR, CHAIN & FORGE DIVISION OF the BOSTON METALS CO., Albert F. Maurer Company, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Michael M. Hunter, New York City, for the United States.
Allerton deC. Tompkins, New York City, attorney of record, for appellees.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges.
The United States appeals from the decision and judgment of the Second Division of the United States Customs Court1 sustaining the protests herein and overruling the tariff classification of machinery used for making heavy steel anchor chains for vessels. Two protests and two separate shipments are involved. The first shipment, entered in April 1958, consisted of a heavy-duty transport system the function of which was to convey partially manufactured chains from one processing or manufacturing station to the next ensuing station. The second shipment, entered in May 1958, consisted of five machines to be used in the step-by-step production of the chains. This latter shipment comprised (1) an electrical resistance heater, (2) a hydraulic bending machine, (3) an automatic flash welding machine, (4) a clamping device, and (5) a hydraulically operated steel press.
The heavy-duty transport system, first shipment, was classified as other articles having as an essential feature an electrical device or element, not specially provided for, under paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, T.D. 52739, and assessed duty at the rate of 13¾ percent ad valorem. Appellees, (plaintiffs below) protested (62/8017) claiming that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 11 percent under paragraph 353.
The merchandise comprising the second shipment was classified as follows:
Article Tariff Provision Duty 1. Electrical Par. 353, as modified, 12½% resistance T.D. 52739 (electric heater heater) 2. Hydraulic Par. 372, as modified, 15% bending T.D. 51802 (machine machine tools) 3. Automatic Par. 353, as modified, 11% flash welding T.D. 54108 (electric machine welding apparatus) 4. Clamping Par. 372, as modified, 12% device T.D. 54108 (machine nspf) 5. Hydraulically Par. 372, as modified, 15% operated stud T.D. 51802 (machine press tools)
In protesting those classifications (protest 62/10442), appellee claimed that the articles should be classified as an entirety with duty at 11% under paragraph 353 ( ).
The pertinent provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 are:
Classified under Paragraph 353, as modified, T.D. 52739 Articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors fans, locomotives, portable tools furnances, heaters, ovens, ranges washing machines, refrigerators and signs, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for: * * * * * * Electric * * * heaters, and ovens ................... 12½% ad val. * * * * * * Other * * * .................. 13¾% ad val. Paragraph 353, as modified, T.D. 54108: Electrical signaling, welding, and ignition apparatus, instruments (other than laboratory), and devices, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for ............................. 11% ad val. Paragraph 372, as modified, T.D. 51802: Machine tools (except jig-boring machine tools) ................. 15% ad val. Paragraph 372, as modified, T.D. 54108: Machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for: * * * * * * Other * * * ................... 12% ad val. Claimed under: Paragraph 353, as modified, T.D. 54108: Electrical signaling, welding, and ignition apparatus, instruments (other than laboratory), and devices, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for .............................. 11% ad val. * * * * * * Parts, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, not specially provided for, of articles provided for in any item 353 in this Part: * * * * * * Other ......................... The same rate of duty as the articles of which they are parts.
We have carefully reviewed the facts adduced of record. In material substance, they are not in dispute and were fairly and succinctly stated by the Customs Court:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. United States
-
US v. WATCHES, WATCH PARTS, CALCULATORS, ETC.
...New York Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, 459 F.2d 1047 (C.C.P. A.1972); United States v. Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Division of the Boston Metals Co., Albert Maurer Co., 459 F.2d 1403 (C.C.P.A.1972); Tanross Supply Co. v. United States, 433 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1970); C.R. Industries v.......
- Shinn Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 678-71
-
KMW Johnson, Inc. v. US
...Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States, 13 CIT ___, 723 F.Supp. 805, 810 (1989) (citing United States v. Baldt Anchor, Chain & Forge Div. of the Boston Metals Co., 59 CCPA 122, 126, C.A.D. 1051, 459 F.2d 1403, 1406-07 (1972); Franklin Indus., Inc. v. United States, 1 CIT 349, 350-51, 1981 WL......