United States v. Servco Company
Decision Date | 10 May 1973 |
Docket Number | Customs Appeal No. 5509. |
Citation | 477 F.2d 579,60 CCPA 137 |
Parties | The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. The SERVCO COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Frederick L. Ikenson, New York City, for the U. S.
Robert Glenn White, Los Angeles, Cal. (Glad & Tuttle, Los Angeles, Cal.), attorneys of record, for appellee.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and ALMOND, Senior Judge.
This appeal is from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, Third Division, 68 Cust.Ct. ___, C.D. 4341 (1972), sustaining appellee's protest against the classification of certain steel products imported from Austria under TSUS 610.52, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as other tubes, not welded, jointed, or seamed, not conforming to the API specifications for oil well casing, not suitable for use in the manufacture of ball or roller bearings, and of alloy iron or steel. The Customs Court held the merchandise classifiable as parts of boring and extracting machinery for earth, minerals, or ores under TSUS 664.05. We affirm.
The merchandise consists of tubular steel products, 30 feet long, 2 13/16 inches in inside diameter, and either 6¼ or 8 inches in outside diameter, described on the commercial invoices as "AM Non-Magnetic semi-finished austenitic stainless survey Drill Collar without Threading and without welded steel subs acc. to specifications * * *."
The argument of appellant, the United States, revolves primarily about the application of General Interpretative Rule 10(h), which states :
Unless the context requires otherwise, a tariff description for an article covers such article, whether assembled or not assembled, and whether finished or not finished * * *.
Appellant's brief notes that the Customs Court, in deciding between the two provisions, stated that the tube provision, TSUS 610.52, "is not a specific provision for pipes and tubes which are identifiable parts of articles," relying on Schedule 6, Part 2, Headnote 1(iv), which states that Part 2 of Schedule 6 does not include articles specially provided for elsewhere in the Tariff Schedules, or parts of articles. Appellant says that the Customs Court "apparently considered the claimed provision for boring machinery and parts (in conjunction with General Interpretative Rule 10(h) to remove the merchandise from Part 2 * * *."
Appellant here takes issue with that finding, asserting error in the Customs Court having "concluded that the subject tubes were excluded from the tube provision by virtue of Schedule 6, Part 2, Headnote 1(iv), and embraced by the boring machinery parts provision, by virtue of General Interpretative Rule 10(h)."
Appellant's brief tells us why this exclusion and resultant classification is believed to be improper (footnotes omitted) :
The Court concluded (id. 436 F.2d at 1394, 58 CCPA at 115) :
We agree with the trial court that the phrase in General Interpretative Rule 10(h) "unless the context requires otherwise" is meant to withdraw the Rule from operation wherever classification of an unfinished article under the provision for the completed article would come into conflict with any express declarations of Congress elsewhere set forth, that require otherwise. Thus the rule might be effective to save an unfinished article from being classified under a mere basket item written from a horror of leaving any import unprovided for, but it is ineffective by its own terms against a specific provision that implements a policy of Congress, consciously arrived at and clearly stated. Congress has historically wanted forgings to be classed and dealt with as forgings, and has put into the new schedules nothing to state a contrary intention now.
Appellant's position here is also that the merchandise is a basic shape—a tube —which is a designation of a characteristic product of the steel industry within the meaning of the above quotation from Gerber, and that, like the forgings there,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Boe
...merchandise is claimed by the importer to consist of nonmagnetic austenitic drill collars identical to those in United States v. Servco Co., 477 F.2d 579, 60 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 1098 (1973). The present merchandise was entered at New Orleans on July 8, July 24, and August 29, 1974, and at Hous......
-
Kyocera Indus. Ceramics Corp. v. U.S.
...requirements an, assembly process, not further processing); The Servco Co. v. United States, 68 Cust.Ct. 83, C.D. 4341 (1972), aff'd, 60 C.C.P.A. 137, C.A.D. 1098, 477 F.2d 579 (1973)(imports in the shape and form of pipes and tubes not parts due to substantial post-importation processing n......
-
Jarvis Clark Co. v. U.S.
...the same as heading 84.23 of the Brussels Nomenclature. Servco Co. v. United States, 68 Cust.Ct. 83, 90 (1972), aff'd, 477 F.2d 579 (C.C.P.A.1973).3 The provisions cross-referenced in the headnote and explanatory note (TSUS Schedule 6, Part 6, and Nomenclature heading 86.06, respectively), ......
-
Avins Industrial Products Co. v. United States
...as machinery parts of porcelain. The Servco Company v. United States, 68 Cust Ct. 83, C.D. 4341 (1972), aff'd sub nom., United States v. The Servco Company, 60 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 1098, 477 F.2d 579 (1973); American Feldmuehle Corp. et al. v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 462, C.D. 4021 (1970). C......