Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

39 Cust. Ct. 179
United States Customs Court·Decided October 17, 1957·No. C. D. 1923·Published·Cited by 28 cases

Opinion

Mollison, Judge:

Section 3424 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, provided for a tax or duty on the importation of—

Lumber, including sawed timber, rough, or planed or dressed on one or more sides (except lumber and timber of teak, balsa, Japanese white oak, Japanese maple, Northern white pine (pinus strobus), Norway pine (pinus resinosa), and Western white spruce, and except flooring made of maple, birch, and beech): * * *

at varying rates depending upon the kind of lumber imported (and in some cases, not material here, upon its condition).

The plaintiffs herein imported lumber described on the invoices as “yellow cedar,” with or without other qualifying words. The collector of customs assessed tax or duty at the rate of $1.50 per thousand feet, board measure, under the catchall provision in section 3424 (a), as modified, for lumber, other than those kinds specifically named. The protest in each case is directed against this assessment, claiming the merchandise to be properly dutiable at the rate of 75 cents per thousand feet, board measure, under the said Internal Revenue Code provision, as modified, for “cedar (except cedar commercially known as Spanish cedar).”

There is no dispute as to the actual nature of the lumber involved. It is lumber derived from a tree bearing the botanical name Chamaecy-paris nootkatensis and is not commercially known as Spanish cedar. The parties are agreed that the issue is whether such lumber is within [181] the meaning of the term “cedar,” as used in section 3424 (a), as modified, supra.

The term “cedar” did not appear in section 3424 (a) as it was originally enacted, but was inserted by a modification proclaimed by the President under the Trade Agreements Act. Neither party has cited anything in the way of the history of the trade agreement modification which would indicate that it was the intent of the negotiators of the general agreement and/or of the President in issuing the pertinent proclamation that the term “cedar,” as used in the general agreement and proclamation, should have any particular meaning other than its ordinary meaning.

Moreover, there does not seem to be any question but that, as it appears in the modification of section 3424 (a), supra, the term “cedar” is a tariff term, subject to the rules of interpretation and construction generally applied thereto.

One of the basic rules applicable in the interpretation of tariff terms is that, in the absence of manifest contrary intention of the legislature, the tariff sense of a term is its ordinary or common meaning, unless commercial designation is established. Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. v. United States, 32 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 129, 132, C. A. D. 296.

Plaintiffs contend that the common and commercial meaning of the term “cedar” is the same, and that the merchandise at bar, yellow cedar, is embraced within that meaning.

Counsel for the defendant has not indicated whether it contends that the common and commercial meanings of the term “cedar” are different, but relies upon the testimony of its witnesses as to a commercial meaning of the term “cedar,” which embraces only lumber known as “western red cedar” or “red cedar” and excludes the merchandise at bar. The defendant, therefore, has not indicated whether it relies upon the rule of commercial designation, a prerequisite to the application of which is a difference between the common and commercial meanings of a tariff term, but, in any event, it is proper at this point to consider and determine the common meaning of the term “cedar.”

Some of the rules of law which apply in the determination of the common meaning of tariff terms are set forth succinctly in United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., Joseph H. Brown, 43 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 111, 117, C. A. D. 617, as follows:

* * * The common meaning of a tariff term is a question of law for the court. United States v. Shalon & Co., 33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 29, C. A. D. 311. In determining the common meaning of tariff terms, courts may receive evidence as to such meaning, but such evidence is merely advisory to the court. United States v. O. Brager-Larsen, 36 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, C. A. D. 388. The courts are not bound by such testimony, but will ordinarily chiefly rely upon decisions of the courts and upon the definitions found in dictionaries and other léxico-[182] graphical authorities. United States v. Florea & Co., Inc., 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 292, 296, T. D. 49396.

Neither party has cited any judicial decision establishing the common meaning of the term “cedar.”

In support of its contention that the common meaning of that term embraces yellow cedar, the merchandise at bar, and that the commercial meaning is the same as its common meaning, plaintiffs offered the evidence of two witnesses of considerable experience in the wholesale lumber trade of the United States, the gist of whose testimony is that, in their experience in such trade, the term “cedar” embraced the wood of a number of trees of differing botanical genera, including Ohamaecyparis nootkatensis, and commonly denominated by the addition to the term “cedar” of adjectives denoting color, such as “red,” “white,” or “yellow,” and/or location, such as “western,” “inland,” “Alaska,” “Tennessee,” etc.

This testimony, which, as hereinbefore noted, is advisory only, corroborates many dictionary and other lexicographic authorities, cited by counsel for the plaintiffs and available to the court, as follows:

Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d edition, 1945:

cedar * * * 1. Any of a large number of trees having fragrant wood of remarkable durability; specif.: a Any of many conifers of temperate or subtropical regions; as: (1) The cedar of Lebanon and other species of Cedrus. (2) Any tree of the genus Juniperus, esp. J. virginiana, the red cedar, of eastern North America, the West Indian species J. barbadensis, and, less often, J. communis, the juniper. (3) Any tree of the genus Chamaecyparis, esp. C. thyoides, the white cedar, of eastern North America, and several western species. (4) Any tree of the genus Thuja, esp. T. occidentalis, the arborvitae, and T. plicata, the enormous western red cedar. * * *
2. The wood of the cedar.
* ifc * * ?j« ‡ *

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1947, volume 5, pages 85-6:

CEDAR, a name applied to several coniferous trees (see Gymnosperms), and a few broad-leaved species.
*******
The name cedar is applied to species of several other genera of conifers, including Juniperus, Thuja, Libocedrus, Chamaecyparis and Cupressus.

Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1953, volume 4, pages 620-1:

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

Border Brokerage Co. v. United States, 39 Cust. Ct. 179 (cusc 1957).

39 Cust. Ct. 179 (Border Brokerage Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pier I Imports, Inc. v. United States
83 Cust. Ct. 43 (U.S. Customs Court, 1979)
Anderson v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 452 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
F. E. Macartney, Inc. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 337 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Macartney v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 312 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Armstrong v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 536 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Holmes v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 536 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Humphreys v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 536 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
May v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 536 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 505 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Tower v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 504 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
John V. Carr & Son, Inc. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 504 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Brady v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 496 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Emery v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 496 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Union Brokerage Co. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 489 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
F. W. Myers & Co. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 485 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)