Ball v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 143, 1917 WL 20078, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 69
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 21, 1917
DocketNo. 1783
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 8 Ct. Cust. 143 (Ball v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ball v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. 143, 1917 WL 20078, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 69 (ccpa 1917).

Opinion

Barber, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion, of tbe court:

Tbe importations in tbis case are made of steel. Tbeir method of manufacture is stated by a competent witness as follows:

The steel is first cast into square ingots. These square ingots are rolled into round solid blooms.' These blooms are cut up into short lengths,’ and the short lengths are pierced under- a steam hammer, which expands but does not lengthen them. They are then heated up again and rolled in the same type of mill as you would roll solid bars, over a cast-iron plug. ’ After the first rolling they are pickled and ground to remove any surface defects. They are then rolled again to the size desired, after which they are again pickled and annealed and if necessary ground again, after which a piece is cut from each end, which is hardened and fractured, and if those fractures are satisfactory the material is ready for shipment.

The evidence also shows that tbe blooms are about 2 feet long when pierced; that tbe rolling processes thereafter applied cause tbeir lengths to increase, with tbe result that the articles before us are from about 5 to 10 feet long, with inside’diameters varying according to tbe lengths from about- an inch to- 3 or 4 inches., Tbe thickness of the walls also varies according to size, and is not in any one size of exactly uniform thickness. So far as form alone is concerned, these articles may.be described as seamless tubes or pipes. They are finished so far as the rolling processes are concerned, and are not designed to be further processed until they are employed as material in the manufacture of something else.

The importers are the agents in this country for the Swedish manufacturers. They sell practically all they import to one customer, because they are unable' to obtain more than enough for his use. [145]*145He employs tbem as material for tbe manufacture of the inside and outside rings of ball bearings, called “ball races.” To do this, the tubes are cut into appropriate short sections, machined inside and out, tempered, and ground. They have also been used in the manufacture of bushings, in the course of which they are processed similarly as in the manufacture of ball bearings. Seamless steel tubes like these can be used for many different mechanical purposes.

There is another process employed in producing seamless steel tubes, known as the drawing process, not clearly explained, in the course of which dies.are employed, which probably results in walls more uniform in thickness than the process by which these importations have been produced. The evidence, however, tends to show that it is practically impossible by either process to roll or draw any tube absolutely to size or gauge, and the trade seems to allow a leeway of from 8 or 10 to 15 per cent variation of wall thickness' in these tubes, and sometimes more, according to the requirements of the customer. Some witnesses testified that the tubes were finished because the final processes of manufacture in their present form had been applied, one saying that there was no such thing' as an unfinished tube as it finally came from the rolls. One of importers’, witnesses thought the tubes were not in a finished condition as imported. There is, however, no claim that anything remains to be done to fit them as material for any manufacture for which they are designed or suitable.

Some of the Government’s witnesses testified that merchandise exactly like that here was known in the trade as a tube and at least one that it was regarded as a finished tube.

The question resolves itself to this: Are these seamless steel tubes, finished so far as their present condition is concerned and fit and designed only for use' as material, dutiable as assessed under the provision for “all other iron or steel tubes, finished, not specially provided for in this section,” found in paragraph 127 of the act of 1913? which we here quote:

127. Lap-welded, butt-welded, seamed, or jointed iron or steel tubes, pipes, flues, or stays; cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels, for bolding gas, liquids, or other material, whether full or empty; flexible metal tubing or hose, not specially provided for in this section, whether covered with wire or other material, or otherwise including any appliances or attachments affixed thereto; welded cylindrical tenaces, tubes or flues made from plate metal, and corrugated, ribbed, or otherwise reenforced against collapsing pressure, and all other non or steel tubes, finished, not specially provided for in this section, 20 per centum ad valorem.

The importers protested, claiming the duty should be assessed under paragraph 110 of the same act as within the provision for “all steels by whatever process made, containing alloys such as * * * chromium * * The Board of General Appraisers overruled [146]*146tbe protest. It is conceded tbat tbe metal from wbicb these tubes were made as above described contains chromium as an alloy.

Tbe importers contend first, tbat tbe articles are not tubes within tbe common understanding; second, tbat they are not commercially shown to be tubes, but say tbat, assinning for tbe sake of argument tbat they are tubes, they are not finished tubes in fact or commercially so known. They concede tbat if tbe articles are finished tubes they are more specifically provided for in paragraph 127 than in paragraph 110.

Omitting for tbe present tbe question as to whether these articles are finished steel tubes, we consider whether or not they are tubes in the common acceptation of the term. ■ Restated briefly, they are 5 to 10 feet long, of diameters varying according to the size desired, from about an inch to approximately 3 or 5 inches, are hollow and have an exterior circumference that is practically a circle, while the circumference of the hollow or hole is almost a circle and as nearly so as the processes employed will produce. Nothing more is required to be done to them until used as material for the manufacture of something else.

The importers’ counsel urges that they are not tubes because they are not used for the purposes in. which tubes are usually employed. He points to the fact that as defined by the lexicographers, one meaning of the word “tube” is a “hollow cylinder of any material to convey liquids or .gases,” and says that the use to which these articles are applied is so far foreign thereto that they are not tubes in the common acceptation of the term.

Webster defines a tube as follows:

Tube.—1. A hollow cylinder, of any material, to convey liquids or gases or for some other purpose; a pipe; as, a Are tube; a water tube; a condenser tube (see Condenser, 2e); the tubes of a tubular bridge; a friction tube; the tube of a musical instrument; bronchial tube; a priming tube, etc.
The word “tube” is arbitrarily associated with certain articles or devices not customarily called pipes, and vice versa, although tube and pipe are practically synonymous mechanically; as, iron pipe; glass or rubber tube; gas pipe; boiler tube.

In Knight’s Mechanical Dictionary, when referring to it as made of metal, it is said that a tube is a “metallic pipe of many kinds and uses.”

We think it can not be said that whether or not an article is a tube depends qpon the use to which it is applied.

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

Related

Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States
10 Ct. Int'l Trade 197 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
Buchanan Electrical Products Corp. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 570 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
E. Green & Son (New York.), Inc. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 241 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Atlantic Aluminum & Metal Distributors, Inc. v. United States
42 Cust. Ct. 37 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Davis-Bilt Products Co. v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 332 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)
Winkler-Koch Engineering Co. v. United States
16 Cust. Ct. 42 (U.S. Customs Court, 1946)
Pacific Vegetable Oil Co. v. United States
32 C.C.P.A. 68 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1944)
United States v. J. A. Schneider & Co.
21 C.C.P.A. 352 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)
United States v. Sargent
20 C.C.P.A. 172 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1932)
Ford Motor Co. v. United States
19 C.C.P.A. 69 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 449 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
United States v. Downing & Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 194 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
Wilkes-Barre Lace Mfg. Co. v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 519 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1923)
Carr v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 1 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ct. Cust. 143, 1917 WL 20078, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-united-states-ccpa-1917.