United States v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 April 1974 |
Docket Number | Customs Appeal No. 5536. |
Citation | 495 F.2d 771 |
Parties | The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. JOHN V. CARR & SON, INC., Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Irving Jaffe, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Robert B. Silverman, New York City, for the United States.
Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee. Joseph Schwartz and Irving Levine, of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.
This appeal is from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, 70 Cust.Ct. 80, C.D. 4411, 358 F. Supp. 280 (1973) sustaining appellee's claim that the subject merchandise was improperly classified. We reverse.
The merchandise consists of two kinds of transistorized printed wiring board assemblies, one invoiced as a "control board" and the other as a "protective circuit board." Both assemblies are used as parts of a pulse modulation system for operating fork lift trucks. In such a system, the motor is supplied with energy in distinct pulses spaced at equal intervals of time through a solid state switch device in the battery circuit. The control board provides electrical pulses to control the opening and closing of the device. The pulses are varied in width by the operator to provide stepless control of the motor speed. According to appellee's witness Evans, the protective circuit board monitors the control board and "induces a large contactor to open the power circuits" in case of malfunction of the control board.
The importations were classified under TSUS item 685.90 reading:
Electrical switches, relays, fuses, lightning arresters, plugs, receptacles lamp sockets, terminals, terminal strips, junction boxes and other electrical apparatus for making or breaking electrical circuits, for the protection of electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; switchboards (except telephone switchboards) and control panels; all the foregoing and parts thereof ....................... 17.5% ad val
The claimed classification as approved by the Customs Court was TSUS item 692.40, which reads in pertinent part:
Fork-lift trucks, platform trucks and other self-propelled work trucks, * * *; and parts of the foregoing trucks and tractors.
Other tariff provisions involved are:
The Customs Court held that the importations were excluded from TSUS item 685.90 "because they are unrelated to electrical power circuits," relying on United States v. General Electric Co., 441 F.2d 1186, 58 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 1021 (1971). Accordingly, it was deemed unnecessary to consider "the common meaning of the terms employed in item 685.90 to describe the articles covered thereby." As to item 692.40, the court held that the provision for parts of fork-lift trucks in that item "is not a tariff classification which is controlled by the chief use principle of general rule 10(e) (i)." It then stated:
Having found that appellee's evidence established that the importations were actually used in the manufacture of fork-lift trucks by the importer, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, the court found the claim for classification of the imported control and protective circuit boards under item 692.40 as parts of fork-lift trucks to be sustained by the record, which included testimony of two witnesses for appellee and one for appellant along with certain exhibits.
OPINIONWith great deference to the fact that the learned trial court heard the witnesses and observed the initial presentation of the exhibits, we think the court erred in its application of General Electric to the present facts. There the goods were jacks for insertion into radio circuits to convey audio signals to earphones. We stated:
We cannot agree with appellant\'s argument that rule 10(ij) requires that the provision of item 685.90 for "other electrical apparatus for making or breaking electrical circuits" must prevail over the provision for parts of radio reception apparatus in item 685.22. This is because we think the Customs Court was correct in its holding that the imported jacks, used in low current audio circuits, are not specifically provided for in item 685.90 since the items enumerated therein all relate to electrical power circuits.
We then expressed the opinion that the jacks there were "not * * * the type of article that Congress intended to encompass by item 685.90" and concluded that "`other electrical apparatus for making or breaking electrical circuits' in item 685.90, TSUS, is not a specific provision rule 10(ij) for the imported jacks."
In General Electric and in Midland International Corporation v. United States, 62 Cust.Ct. 164, C.D. 3715, 295 F.Supp. 1101 (1969), cited therein, it was held that the items in 685.90 relate to power circuits, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corning Glass Works v. United States
...Stores, Inc. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 194, C.D. 3896 (1969). Defendant disputes that contention, citing United States v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., 495 F.2d 771, 61 CCPA 41, 45, C.A.D. 1116 (1974). Since we have found that the classification is erroneous as a matter of law, it is unnece......
-
United States v. Rembrandt Electronics, Inc.
...The judgment of the Customs Court is reversed. 1 Our conclusion on the issue does not disturb the result reached in United States v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., 61 CCPA 41, C.A.D. 1116, 495 F.2d 771 (1974). We properly found the control boards there involved to be classifiable under item 685.......
-
E.R. Hawthorne & Co., Inc. v. U.S.
...here. Under the TSUS, applicability of a "parts" classification is controlled by chief use, not actual use. United States v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., 495 F.2d 771, 61 CCPA 41 (1974). However, the CIT judge held that an unfinished part was not a part for tariff purposes until so far advance......