WY Moberly, Inc. v. US
| Decision Date | 22 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 81-09-01259. |
| Parties | W.Y. MOBERLY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Ross & Hardies (Joseph S. Kaplan, Bret E. Suval, and Michelle F. Forte), New York City, for plaintiff.
Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, New York City (John J. Mahon), for defendant.
This action is before the Court on remand to determine the tariff classification of various structural components of three land-based oil drilling rigs imported from Canada by W.Y. Moberly, Inc.
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (1982). The Court holds that components which are of unitary construction and provide support to a structure are not classifiable as columns, pillars, posts, beams, girders, or similar structural units under item 652.94, of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), if the components are "other than" or their features or functions make them "more than" a column, pillar, post, beam, girder, or similar structural unit. The Court affirms Customs' classification of the oil rig components still in dispute under item 652.98, TSUS.
The United States Customs Service classified various oil rig components under item 652.98, TSUS.1 The importer protested this classification, and now appeals Customs' denial of its protest.
In W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 391, 645 F.Supp. 282, reh'g denied, 10 CIT 497, 1986 WL 372 (1986), this Court rejected the importer's alternative claim, first raised at trial, that its merchandise was classifiable as "columns, pillars, posts, beams, girders, or similar structural units" under item 652.94, TSUS. Since item 652.94, TSUS, does not provide for parts, the provision has been interpreted to require that the imported merchandise be of unitary construction. Laurence Myers Scaffolding Co. v. United States, 57 Cust.Ct. 333, 340, C.D. 2809, 259 F.Supp. 874, 879 (1966). The Court found that a component is not of "unitary construction" if it consisted "of more than one piece of metal." Moberly, 10 CIT at 399, 645 F.Supp. at 288 (citing Frost Ry. Supply Co. v. United States, 39 CCPA 90, 95 C.A.D. 469 (1951)).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in Frost:
The parties engaged in further discovery, presented extensive testimony at a second trial, and conducted unsuccessful settlement negotiations.
Schedule 6, Part 3, Subpart F provides in part:
The competing tariff provisions under this subpart are:
Columns, pillars, posts, beams
girders and similar structural
units
* * *
652.94 Other .............. 3.5% ad val
* * *
652.98 Other .............. 9.5% ad val
Classification under item 652.98, TSUS, refers to the superior heading to this subpart.
The meaning of a tariff term is a question of law. Brookside Veneers, Ltd. v. United States, 847 F.2d 786, 788 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 369, 102 L.Ed.2d 358 (1988). As with other statutes, a court should not inquire further when congressional intent is clearly expressed in the language of the tariff provision. Id. at 788. Since such intent is not evident here as to the meaning of the eo nomine terms within the disputed provisions, the Court must construe the terms according to their common meaning. Austin Chem. Co. v. United States, 835 F.2d 1423, 1426 (Fed.Cir.1987). In determining the common meaning of a tariff term, a court may consult dictionaries, testimony of record, and other reliable sources of information. Brookside Veneers, 847 F.2d at 789.
In J. Ray McDermott & Co. v. United States, 69 Cust.Ct. 197, C.D. 4394 (1972), the Customs Court adopted the definitions of column, pillar, post, and girder found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary:
Webster's also defines a beam as:
a structural member (as an iron girder) usually supported at the two ends that is laid horizontally to bear a load and brace a frame: a horizontal supporting span ...; a long structural member not supported everywhere along its length and subject to the force of flexure.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 190 (1961).
In Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 154, 641 F.Supp. 808 (1986), the court used the definitions of column, pillar, post, beam, and girder from Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
Nissho-Iwai, 10 CIT at 158, 641 F.Supp. at 811 (citations omitted).
Since technical engineering terms are at issue, the Court has also consulted the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Engineering (1984), which provides the following definitions:
According to the lexicographic definitions, expert testimony, and case law, columns, pillars, and posts are upright structural members that vertically support a compressive weight along a single axis. Nissho-Iwai, 10 CIT at 158, 641 F.Supp. at 811; J. Ray McDermott, 69 Cust.Ct. at 207. Beams and girders are also structural members which are supported at two ends, provide horizontal support from a direction perpendicular to their lengths, and resist bending. Nissho-Iwai, 10 CIT at 158, 641 F.Supp. at 811; J. Ray McDermott, 69 Cust.Ct. at 208. Girders are distinguished from beams in that a girder is larger and is a main structural member. All these terms connote components that are relatively slender in proportion to their length or height. Nissho-Iwai, 10 CIT at 158, 641 F.Supp. at 811. Columns, pillars, posts, beams, and girders must also be of unitary construction and be used to provide horizontal or vertical support to a structure. W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States, 825 F.2d 391, 393 (Fed.Cir.1987); Nissho-Iwai, 10 CIT at 157, 641 F.Supp. at 810; J. Ray McDermott & Co., 69 Cust.Ct. at 207; Laurence Myers Scaffolding Co. v. United States, 57 Cust.Ct. 333, 340, C.D. 2809, 259 F.Supp. 874, 879 (1966).
At the first trial no witness identified the components in dispute as columns, beams, girders, or similar structures. Nonetheless, the importer now argues they are properly classifiable under item 652.94, TSUS, because the components meet the requirements of unitary construction and providing vertical or horizontal support to structures.
Defendant concedes that the components still in dispute are of unitary construction, but argues that Customs correctly classified the components under the basket provision of item 652.98, TSUS, because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitsubishi Intern. Corp. v. US
...by Customs, the components are clearly "more than" the articles described by those items, citing W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT 502, 510, 727 F.Supp. 1456, 1462 (1989), aff'd, 924 F.2d 232 B. Defendant Defendant contends Customs properly classified the imported components under......
- Horton Homes, Inc. v. US
-
W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. U.S.
...Moberly, Inc. (Moberly) appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade in W.Y. Moberly, Inc. v. United States, 727 F.Supp. 1456 (Ct.Int'l Trade 1989). The trial court held that sixteen designated structural components of three oil drilling rigs were properly cla......