Brown Boveri Corp. v. United States

58 Cust. Ct. 131, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2534
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 1967
DocketC.D. 2905
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 Cust. Ct. 131 (Brown Boveri Corp. 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
Brown Boveri Corp. v. United States, 58 Cust. Ct. 131, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2534 (cusc 1967).

Opinion

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise of this protest, described on the invoice as 1 intermediate bearing and 1 journal bearing for compressor VWT 809, was imported at New York from Switzerland, and classified in liquidation under the provision for parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device in chief value of metal, 'and not specially provided for in 19 T7.S.O.A., section 1001, paragraph 353 (paragraph 353, Tariff Act of 1930) as modified by T.D. 52739. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that the merchandise should be classified under the provision for machines and parts, not specially provided for, in 19 U.S.C.A., section 1001, paragraph 372 (paragraph 372, Tariff Act of 1930) as modified by TJD. 54108.

The competing tariff provisions read as follows:

[Par. 353, as modified] Articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, fans, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, ranges, washing machines, refrigerators, and signs, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:
Other (* * *)_13%% ad val.
Parts, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, not specially provided for, of articles provided for in any item 353 of this Part (not including X-ray tubes or parts thereof)
The same rate of duty as the articles of which they are parts

[Par. 372, as modified] Machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for:

Other (* * *)_11%% ad val.
Parts, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of metal or porcelain, of any article provided for in any item 372 in this Part
The rate for the article of which they are parts

Albert Bertschmann, a graduate mechanical engineer in the employ of Brown Boveri Corp. (New York) as supervisor of the mechanical department, and who was formerly in the employ of Brown Boveri Co. (Switzerland), was the only witness at the trial. It was brought out on direct and cross-examination of the witness that the involved merchandise constitutes two of three types of babbitt-lined anti-friction bearings which are manufactured by Brown Boveri Co. as constituent parts of isotherm compressors which the company manufactures. [133]*133These isotherm compressors are units in a complex of machines and other apparatus which are used in the plant manufacture of nitric acid. In evidence as plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibits 1 and 2 are photographs depicting plant installations of isotherm compressors and related equipment, including a “close up” view of the particular bearings in issue. The VWT 809 compressor is one of four sizes of isotherm compressors which are imported by Brown Boveri Corp. (New York) and sold and serviced in the United States. The involved bearings function as supporting parts for the compressor’s rotor shaft which carries 9 impellers, and revolves at a speed of about 7,000 revolutions per minute in compressing air up to about 120 pounds to provide about 26,000 cubic feet of air per minute to a nitric acid process.

It was not established in the evidence what the precise motive power is for the compressor of which the involved bearings are said to be a part. However, it was established that the isotherm compressor of Brown Boveri manufacture, of which the VWT 809 compressor is typical, is designed to utilize either of two types of motive power applications. One type of installation involves partial power recovery and features the use of a kind of gas turbine called an “expander” (utilizes nitrogen residue) in conjunction with a synchronous electric motor to drive the compressor. According to Mr. Bertschmann, the “expander” supplies % of the total power input which powers the compressor and the electric motor supplies the remaining y3 of the power input in this type of installation. The other type of power installation involves total power recovery and employs the “expander” in conjunction with a steam turbine (utilizing steam byproduct) to furnish the motive power to drive the compressor in what is called a self-sustaining operation. In this type of installation the electric motor is substituted for by the turbine which supplies the residual power needed to operate the compressor.

It appears that both types of power installations have been made by Brown Boveri Corp. in connection with isotherm compressors imported into the United States. Between 1954 and 1958 the imported compressors were mainly installed with motor power units; and since that time the compressor installations have gone to turbines for the residual power source. It was also brought out in the testimony that a conversion from one power application to the other does not involve any modification of the compressor which is coupled to the power source by means of a flexible coupling. The conversion involves only a change in the supporting foundation for the power unit and a cost of about $10,000 as against an overall cost for acquisition and installation of about $200,000.

As for electrical equipment other than the motor and the control' panel therefor which is housed on the compressor’s exterior in electric [134]*134motor installations,

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

Related

William H. Masson, Inc. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 55 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Castelazo v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 588 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Brown Boveri Corp. v. United States
61 Cust. Ct. 649 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Miller v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 212 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Elser Elevator Co. v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 432 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Cust. Ct. 131, 1967 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-boveri-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1967.