Birns & Sawyer Cine Equipment Co. v. United States

68 Cust. Ct. 132, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2541
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedApril 4, 1972
DocketC.D. 4349
StatusPublished

This text of 68 Cust. Ct. 132 (Birns & Sawyer Cine Equipment Co. 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
Birns & Sawyer Cine Equipment Co. v. United States, 68 Cust. Ct. 132, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2541 (cusc 1972).

Opinion

Maletz, Judge:

This case involves the dutiable status of an importation from Japan in 1967 that was invoiced as a “Director’s zoom range finder for cameras.” The import was assessed by the government with duty of 45 percent under item 708.89 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as other optical appliances and instruments not provided for elsewhere in part 2 of schedule 7.

Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly dutiable at only 25 percent under item 722.78 as range finders designed to be used with photographic cameras.

The relevant statutory provisions are contained in part 2, schedule 7 of the tariff schedules, and read as follows:

Classified under:
Optical appliances and instruments not provided for elsewhere in part 2 of this schedule; * * *
* * * * * ■ * *
[133]*133708.89 Other appliances and instruments _ 45% ad val.
Claimed -under:
722.78 Range finders designed to be used with photographic cameras, and parts thereof_ 25% ad val.

The import consists of a black cylinder 8% inches in length and 214 inches in width at its longest and widest points. It contains an eyepiece through which the user views a desired subject in a clearly defined rectangle. It also contains a movable outer ring which, when turned by the viewer, varies the height of the rectangle to correspond in size to various camera formats, such as Standard, Vista Vision TV, etc. In addition, the import contains a movable inner ring which, when turned, changes the size of the image in the rectangle. Thus, by turning the inner ring, a close-up or long shot is viewable in the rectangle. Once the particular composition is chosen (e.g., a close-up or long shot), calibrated numbers on the inner ring, in conjunction with tables affixed to the barrel, are used to ascertain the appropriate camera lens for that composition.

The import is used by a motion picture or television film director to select for a particular scene the field of view and composition he desires be seen on the finished film. When that is done, the director confers with the cameraman who thereupon inserts in the motion picture camera a lens that will provide the field of view and composition desired by the director. In short, the import is used to delineate the field of view and the composition of the scene to be filmed, and thereby assists in the selection of the proper lens for the motion picture camera. As explained in an instruction sheet issued by the plaintiff: “Because most motion picture cameras are equipped with several lenses of different focal length, the Director’s Finder [i.e., the import in issue here] helps in two ways. First, it can show what views the camera reveals through its available lenses, and second, it can select the best composition and to achieve it, determine what focal length lens should be used.”

It is to be noted that the import has no practical application for determining how far an object is away from the lens of the camera; on the contrary, the camera must be independently focused to insure that a clear image will emerge at the distance the subject is from the camera. Indeed, it is undisputed that the import does not measure distance.

Turning now to the legal aspects, plaintiff says in its brief (p. 11) that it “does not deny that there is merchandise in use commonly referred to as range finders which have as their function the measure[134]*134ment of distance.” However, plaintiff argues that “that is only one type of ‘range finder’ and that the merchandise in the case at bar is also a ‘range finder’ as that term is commonly understood.” Ibid. In this context, our problem is to determine whether imported articles such as those involved here which delineate the area to be viewed and assist in the selection of the proper lens for motion picture cameras are within the common meaning of the item 722.78 statutory language “[rjange finders designed to be used with photographic cameras * *

It is basic that in the absence of a showing of commercial designation, the language of a tariff provision will be given its common meaning. E.g., United States v. John B. Stetson Co., 21 CCPA 3, 4, T.D. 46319 (1933). And it is equally basic that the court may refer to dictionaries and other lexicographic authorities to assist it in ascertaining the common meaning of the words used in a statute. E.g., United States v. Tropical Craft Corp., etc., 42 CCPA 223, 227, C.A.D. 598 (1955); Floral Arts Studio, et al. v. United States, 46 CCPA 21, C.A.D. 690 (1958); United States v. Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc., 46 CCPA 115, C.A.D.711 (1959).

In an effort to establish the common meaning of the term “range finder,” plaintiff refers to various dictionaries which define the words “range,” “scope,” “compass” and “finder,” as follows:

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1938), defines the word “range” in part as follows:

* * * 7. Extent or space taken in or covered; compass; reach; scope; sphere * * *.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1963) defines the word “range” in part as follows:

* * * 8a: the space or extent included, covered, or used * * * b: a field of operation; an area actively occupied or used * * * c: the scope or span usu. of activity, experience, or knowledge * * *

Synonyms given in this lexicographic work for the word “range” include the words “compass” and “scope.”

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1938), contains the following definitions:

scope * * * 4.a Range of view, intent or mental activity, b The range within which an activity displays itself; * * *. Syn. range.
compass 1. The enclosing limit, boundary, or circumference of any area. 2. An enclosed space; area; hence, limits, reach, sweep, or capacity * * *. Syn. See Range.

[135]*135And Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1963) contains the following definitions:

scope * * * 4a: the general range or extent of cognizance, consideration, activity, or influence * * * b: the limited field_ or subject under consideration: the range of the matter being treated: the marked off area of relevancy * * *.
compass * * * b: an enclosed or delimited space or area often circumscribed * * * c: range or limit of perception, cognizance, knowledge, interest, concern, or treatment * * *.
finder * * 5: a device attached to or forming a part of a camera for showing the area of the subject that will be included in the picture * * *.

Plaintiff further points out that at trial the two witnesses who testified agreed that the importations performed functions which are encompassed in the definitions of “range,” “scope” and “compass,” above quoted.

We think, however, that plaintiff has taken a rather circuitous method to establish a common meaning for the term “range finder.” A more direct and accurate approach would have been to use as a basis of common meaning the dictionary definitions for the entire term “range finder.” Thus, in

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

Related

Willoughbys Camera Stores, Inc. v. United States
30 Cust. Ct. 76 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 Cust. Ct. 132, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birns-sawyer-cine-equipment-co-v-united-states-cusc-1972.