United States v. Flex Track Equipment, Ltd.
Decision Date | 20 April 1972 |
Docket Number | Customs Appeal No. 5430. |
Citation | 458 F.2d 148,59 CCPA 97 |
Parties | The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. FLEX TRACK EQUIPMENT, LTD., and Border Brokerage Co., Inc., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Patrick D. Gill, New York City, for the United States.
Glad, Tuttle & White, San Francisco, Cal., attorneys of record, for appellee; George R. Tuttle, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges.
This is an appeal from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, Second Division,1 sustaining the protest against the classification of certain merchandise invoiced as "10 ROLLS COMPRISING 10—ONLY A213 ARCTIC TRACK TREADS RN110."
The merchandise was classified as belting and belts for machinery, of vegetable fibers, in part of rubber or plastics under item 358.10 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), and assessed with duty at the rate of 16% ad valorem. The importers (appellees) claimed that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 8.5% ad valorem under item 692.25, TSUS, as other parts of motor vehicles.
Relevant tariff provisions are as follows:
Classified Schedule 3, part 4, subpart C Belting and belts, for machinery Of vegetable fibers, or of such fibers and rubber or plastics * * * * * * 358.10 In part of rubber of plastics ............... 16% ad val Claimed: Schedule 6, part 6, subpart B: Motor vehicles (except motorcycles) for the transport of persons or articles: * * * * * * Motor vehicles specially constructed and equippedto perform special services or functions, such as, but not limited to, fire engines, mobile cranes, wreckers, concrete mixers, and mobile clinics ............................................... * * * * * * * * * Chassis, bodies (including cabs), and parts of the foregoing motor vehicles: * * * * * * Other: * * * * * * 692.25 Other ...................................... 8.5% ad val.
The court below concluded that the imported merchandise was designed and used to function as more than belting for machinery and sustained the protest claim under TSUS item 692.25.
The facts, as established by the testimony and exhibits adduced, are not in dispute and were summarized by the court below:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanyo Elec. Inc. v. United States, C.D. 4855
...Pollard Bearings Corp. v. United States, 62 CCPA 61, 64, C.A.D. 1146, 511 F.2d 568, 571 (1975). See also e. g., United States v. Flex Track Equipment Ltd., 59 CCPA 97, C.A.D. 1046, 458 F.2d 148 (1972) ...." 76 Cust.Ct. at The power failure lights do not provide merely an auxiliary or incide......
-
NEC America, Inc. v. United States
...that merchandise which constitutes more than a particular article is not classifiable as that article. E.g., United States v. Flex Track Equipment Ltd., 59 CCPA 97, 100, C.A.D. 1046, 458 F.2d 148, 151 (1972); E. Green & Son (New York), Inc. v. United States, 59 CCPA 31, 34, C.A.D. 1032, 450......
-
AMICO, INC. v. United States
...C.A.D. 1146 (1975); United States v. Acec Electric Corp., 474 F.2d 1009, 60 CCPA 113, C.A.D. 1091 (1973); United States v. Flex Track Equipment, Ltd., et al., 458 F.2d 148, 59 CCPA 97, C.A.D. 1046 (1972); United States v. New York Merchandise Co., Inc., 435 F.2d 1315, 58 CCPA 53, C.A.D. 100......
-
Ashflash Corp. v. United States
...as that article. Dollar Trading Corp. v. United States, 468 F.2d 631, 60 CCPA 10, C.A.D. 1074 (1972); United States v. Flex Track Equipment Ltd. et al., 458 F.2d 148, 59 CCPA 97, C.A.D. 1046 (1972); E. Green & Son (New York), Inc. v. United States, 450 F.2d 1396, 59 CCPA 31, C.A.D. 1032 (19......