United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
Decision Date | 13 May 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 5397.,5397. |
Parties | The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. TOPPS CHEWING GUM, INC., Appellee. |
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.
Alan S. Hays, New York City (Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft), New York City, attorney of record, for appellee; George D. Reycraft, New York City, of counsel.
Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and JONES, Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.
The United States appeals from the decision and judgment of the First Division of the Customs Court in Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v. United States, 63 Cust.Ct. 431, C.D. 3930 (1969), sustaining appellee-importer's protest against the classification of imported merchandise. We reverse.
The merchandise consists of assortments of objects variously labeled as "Wise Guy Buttons," "Smarty Buttons," and "Ugly Buttons." Each of the objects consists of a round metal disk about two inches in diameter and having a metal pin attached to the back. Humorous sayings and/or designs are printed in color on the front of the objects. Examples of the sayings are "I FOUND MY IDEAL — ME" and "SUPPORT SLOPPINESS." One of the designs is of a one-eyed monster and includes the words "HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU."
The collector classified these objects as toys not specially provided for, under item 737.90 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), and assessed duty at 35% ad valorem.
The Customs Court ruled that appellee had established (1) that the objects were not toys within the meaning of TSUS and (2) that they were properly classifiable under TSUS item 745.08 as "buttons of metal," dutiable at 10% ad valorem. Since we conclude that the court below erred as to the first matter, we need not discuss the second.
The term "toy" is defined in the tariff schedules as "any article chiefly used for the amusement of children or adults." In interpreting and applying this provision, the courts are precluded from entertaining any considerations of relative specificity with regard to any provisions outside schedule 7, part 5, subpart E, in which the "toys" item appears. This preclusion arises from headnote 1 to that subpart, which provides:
The articles described in the provisions of this subpart (except parts) shall be classified in such provisions, whether or not such articles are more specifically provided for elsewhere in the tariff schedules * * *.
Thus, the determinative issue in this case is whether the imported objects fit the description "articles chiefly used for the amusement of children or adults." Furthermore, since the objects at bar are clearly "articles," and since "children or adults" apparently includes everyone, the issue boils down to whether or not the chief purpose of the objects at the time of importation was "amusement."
The Customs Court summed up the evidence introduced at trial on the point in issue. 63 Cust.Ct. at 435-436. We paraphrase that portion of the court's opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Processed Plastic Co. v. U.S.
...and social behavior of young children," who had observed children's use of article in their activities); United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, 58 C.C.P.A. 157, 440 F.2d 1384 (1971) (evidence included results of "test marketing" to children; witnesses presented included four children, as well ......
-
Ero Industries, Inc. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 00-138.
...amusement rather than wearing apparel since wearing the costumes itself had amusement value. In United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 58 C.C.P.A. 157, 440 F.2d 1384 (Cust. & Pat. App.1971), round metal buttons imprinted with humorous slogans with a pin on the back so that they could be ......
-
Traveler Trading Co. v. US
...same kind of enjoyment as playthings give, its purpose is amusement, whether or not the object is to be ... worn." United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 58 CCPA 157, 159, C.A.D. 1022, 440 F.2d 1384, 1385 In a ruling on the classification of Halloween costumes comprised of inflatable hea......
-
Henry A. Wess, Inc. v. United States
...of the tariff schedules. See Rhee Importers v. United States, 486 F.2d 1385, 61 CCPA 2, C.A.D. 1108 (1973); United States v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 440 F.2d 1384, 58 CCPA 157, C.A.D. 1022 The Topps Chewing Gum case illustrates clearly that an article need not be a plaything to be a toy un......