C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States

Customs and Patent Appeals

C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States

496 F.2d 1219, 61 C.C.P.A. 74, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 157

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1974

DocketNo. 5526; C.A.D. 1124

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 1219 (C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. 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

C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 496 F.2d 1219, 61 C.C.P.A. 74, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 157 (ccpa 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Lane, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision and judgment of the Second Division of the United States Customs Court reported at 69 Cust. Ct. [75]*75105, C.D. 4379 (1972), overruling appellant’s protest to the classification of imported rough steel castings. The trial court concluded that the imported merchandise was in fact parts of furnaces and had been properly classified under item 661.30 TSUS. Appellant contends that the imported merchandise should be classified under item 664.10 TSUS relating to elevators, hoists, winches, cranes, jacks, pulley tackle, belt conveyors, etc. and parts thereof. As an alternative, appellant contends for classification under item 661.70 TSUS relating to industrial machinery for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, etc. and parts thereof.

The trial court found from the testimony and the exhibits that the imported merchandise comprises rough castings which were subsequently machined and assembled in this country as parts of a conveyor utilized in a pelletizing plant. The trial court also found that the purpose of the pelletizing plant in which the castings were used is to transform iron ore pellets by the application of heat in order to make the pellets suitable for use in a blast furnace.

Upon consideration of appellant’s arguments on the meaning of the term furnace, and that pelletizing machines are a separate commercial entity designed for use in conjunction with a furnace, we conclude that the decision of the lower court is correct. We agree that, the imported castings cannot be classified under item 664.10 because of headnote 1 of subpart A which provides that a machine or appliance which is described in subpart A and also described in other subparts of part 4 is classifiable under subpart A. We likewise agree that the imported castings cannot be classified under item 661.70 since this item is less specific than item 661.30.

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

Lane, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision and judgment of the Second Division of the United States Customs Court reported at 69 Cust. Ct. [75]*75105, C.D. 4379 (1972), overruling appellant’s protest to the classification of imported rough steel castings. The trial court concluded that the imported merchandise was in fact parts of furnaces and had been properly classified under item 661.30 TSUS. Appellant contends that the imported merchandise should be classified under item 664.10 TSUS relating to elevators, hoists, winches, cranes, jacks, pulley tackle, belt conveyors, etc. and parts thereof. As an alternative, appellant contends for classification under item 661.70 TSUS relating to industrial machinery for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, etc. and parts thereof.

The trial court found from the testimony and the exhibits that the imported merchandise comprises rough castings which were subsequently machined and assembled in this country as parts of a conveyor utilized in a pelletizing plant. The trial court also found that the purpose of the pelletizing plant in which the castings were used is to transform iron ore pellets by the application of heat in order to make the pellets suitable for use in a blast furnace.

Upon consideration of appellant’s arguments on the meaning of the term furnace, and that pelletizing machines are a separate commercial entity designed for use in conjunction with a furnace, we conclude that the decision of the lower court is correct. We agree that, the imported castings cannot be classified under item 664.10 because of headnote 1 of subpart A which provides that a machine or appliance which is described in subpart A and also described in other subparts of part 4 is classifiable under subpart A. We likewise agree that the imported castings cannot be classified under item 661.70 since this item is less specific than item 661.30.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 1219, 61 C.C.P.A. 74, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-j-tower-sons-of-buffalo-inc-v-united-states-ccpa-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack