Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc. v. United States

42 Cust. Ct. 37
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 21, 1959
DocketC.D. 2063
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 Cust. Ct. 37 (Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 42 Cust. Ct. 37 (cusc 1959).

Opinion

Lawrence, Judge:

In this cause of action, the question for our determination is whether certain aluminum products should be classified for tariff purposes as aluminum bars or rods.

The imported items in controversy, represented b.y exhibits 1 through 9, with one exception, are cylindrical shapes, hollow in form, having diameters ranging from three-eighths of 1 inch to about 2 inches and in lengths from approximately 34 inches to 21 feet. The [38]*38exception, exhibit 7, is a hollow rectangular shape approximately three-fourths of 1 inch square and 23 inches long. In its imported condition, however, it was 12 feet long.

The collector of customs classified the merchandise as articles, not specially provided for, composed in chief value of aluminum, and duty was imposed thereon at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem in paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.O. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802.

Four protests, which are enumerated in the attached schedule and made a part of this decision, were consolidated for trial.

Plaintiff, by its protests, invokes the provisions of paragraph 374 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 374), as modified by said general agreement, supra, which provides for aluminum and alloys in which aluminum is the component material of chief value “in coils, plates, sheets, bars, rods, circles, disks, blanks, strips, rectangles, and squares,” which are made dutiable at 3 cents per pound.

It may be noted here that the items in controversy are generally referred to on the invoices as aluminum tubes or as aluminum alloy tubing and, moreover, the articles are described on the entries as “aluminum tubing.”

Plaintiff introduced the testimony of two witnesses and defendant called one.

Plaintiff’s first witness, Maurice Norman Katz, had been vice president of the plaintiff company since 1946 and described his duties as “general manager of over-all operations of the purchasing and storing and sale of aluminum, copper and brass mill products.” He received a bachelor of science degree in metallurgy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, as a result of his educational background and practical experience in the purchasing, warehousing, storage, and sale of aluminum, copper, and brass mill products, such as sheets, circles, structures, bars, rods, tubes, et cetera, he possessed an intimate knowledge of the articles in controversy' — their physical, mechanical, and chemical properties as well as their utility. After importation, the subject merchandise is further manufactured by forging, bending, riveting or threading, polishing, and machining for use in the manufacture of clothesracks, TY antennas, chairs, tables, clothes closet rods, bicycles, playpens, lawn furniture, and some other articles.

Having listed the factories or mills in Europe as well as in the United States where these aluminum products are made, Katz testified that the processes of manufacture are substantially the same in all mills. As stated by the witness, “There are two general methods of producing in a mill these types of tubes.” In both instances, [39]*39however, the millman begins by taking an aluminum alloy extrusion ingot which is generally a round cylindrical slab of aluminum alloy. These ingots are heated up to approximately 800 degrees Fahrenheit, then put through an extrusion press operation. By means of a ram, the extrusion ingot is pushed into the face of a die, and the solid extrusion ingot coming out of the die takes on a predetermined form, the die being so shaped that the end product is a hollow shape.

The other method, in which the tubing is drawn, has procedures essentially the same as described above, except that “the tubes that come out of the extrusion press are greater in cross-sectional dimensions than the end product that the mill plans to produce.” These are called tubing blooms or stock. The tube blooms are then taken to draw benches and pulled through a die in one stage or several to bring the tubes to their final dimensions.

When asked to give his understanding of the meaning of the terms “bar” and “rod,” Katz defined a metal rod as “an elongated piece of metal whose cross-section is circular,” regardless of whether it be hollow or solid. A metal bar, he defined “as an elongated piece of metal whose cross-section is in the form of a square or a rectangle or hexagon, not circular,” whether hollow or solid. The witness was then read the definitions of the terms “bar” and “rod” appearing in Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1920 edition, as follows—

bar. 1. a piece of wood, metal, or other material long in proportion to its breadth and thickness, and having in general considerable rigidity such as one used for a lever, support, hindrance, obstruction, fastening, etc. as the bar of a door. 3. A piece of some substance of indefinite size, shaped so as to be long in proportion to its breadth and thickness.
rod. 1. A straight and slender stick, a wand, hence, any slender bar as of wood or metal, * * *.

Katz was then, asked if those definitions conform to the articles marked exhibit 1 through 9, to which he answered in the affirmative.

That the distinction between metal bars and rods is not well defined is indicated in the following testimony of the witness Katz who said—

* * * Sometimes people will refer to a rod according to the definition I gave to the Court as an aluminum round bar; however, when you get down to actual definitions, my interpretations are that it would be more appropriate to call it an aluminum rod rather than an aluminum round bar, but actually in the trade, it is not that important; it is just a matter of usage of language.
Q. But, you heard a round form object called a bar? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you also heard an object with a form other than the round or circular called a rod? — A. Yes, sir.

The attention of the witness was then invited to exhibit 7, which is square in cross-section, and was asked if that was a rod or a bar. He answered — ■

[40]*40In my technical definition, I would say that would be an aluminum hollow bar. However, I have heard very very often someone would refer to it as an aluminum square rod also. They are used interchangeably.

The witness was next interrogated as to the various terms used in the trade in referring to articles such as exhibits 1 through 9.

A. They are referred to as tubes; they are referred to as poles; they are referred to as hollow bars; hollow rods; they are referred to as shafts; also referred to as other names as well.

He also stated that his company had ordered products like exhibits 1 through 9 as hollow rods or bars and also as tubes. He described a mill product as what is generally known as a semifinished form, which would include aluminum sheets, coils, circles, tubes, structures, extrusions, rods, and bars, as well as the merchandise represented by exhibits 1 through 9.

On cross-examination, the witness’ attention was invited to the definition of the word “tube” in Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1949 edition, as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Castelazo v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 345 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 Cust. Ct. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-aluminum-metal-distributors-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1959.