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

351 F. Supp. 604, 69 Cust. Ct. 105, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2490
United States Customs Court·Decided September 22, 1972·No. C.D. 4379; Protests 69/16143-6226 and 69/16150-6233·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

FORD, Judge:

The cases listed above, consolidated for the purpose of trial, involve certain steel castings which were classified as parts of furnaces under item 661.30, Tariff Schedules of the United States, and subject to duty at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiffs contend said merchandise is properly subject to classification as parts of conveyors as provided for in item 664.10, Tariff Schedules of the United States, which provides for duty at the rate of 10.5 per centum ad valorem. Alternatively, it is the position of plaintiffs that said merchandise consists of parts of machinery which treats materials by a process involving temperature change as provided for in item 661.70, Tariff Schedules of the United States, and as such is dutiable at the rate of 12.5 per centum ad valorem.

*605 The statutory provisions herein provide as follows: involved

Schedule 6, Part 4:
Subpart A headnote:
1. A machine or appliance which Is described In this subpart and also Is described elsewhere in this part is classifiable In this subpart.
$ sj* * * $ #
661.30 Industrial and laboratory furnaces and ovens, non-electrlc, and parts
thereof .................. 19% ad val.
******
Industrial machinery, plant, and similar laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature, such as heating, cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, sterilizing, pasteurizing, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporizing, condensing, or cooling; instantaneous or storage water heaters, non-electrical; all the foregoing (except agricultural Implements, sugar machinery, shoe machinery, and machinery or equipment for the heat-treatment of textile yarns, fabbrlcs, or made-up textile articles) and parts thereof: ******
661.70 Other ................ 12.5% ad val.
******
Subpart B. — Elevators, Winches, Cranes, and Related Machinery; Earth-Moving and Mining Machinery
******
664.10 Elevators, hoists, winches, cranes, jacks, pulley tackle, belt conveyors, and other lifting, handling, loading, or unloading machinery, and conveyors, all the foregoing and parts thereof not .provided for In item 664.05 ................ 10.5% ad val.

Plaintiffs not having pressed their additional claims in the protests, they are accordingly deemed abandoned and are therefore dismissed. Randolph Rand Corp. et al. v. United States, 52 Cust.Ct. 107, C.D. 2445 (1964), aff’d, 53 CCPA 24, C.A.D. 871 (1966).

The record consists of the testimony of three witnesses called on behalf of plaintiffs and 14 exhibits received in evidence. Plaintiffs’ exhibit 14 1 for identification was not received .n evidence and its admission was left for determination by the division. Said exhibit consists of a repair manual for the plant located at Black River Falls, Wisconsin. The manual is quite voluminous and contains drawings which have been testified to as reproductions o,f shop drawings as well as maintenance instructions. Said drawings being an accurate representation of machine shop drawings of the involved machines are admissible. However, as to the balance of the manual, it is to be noted that such evidence is not excepted from the hearsay rule. We therefore sustain the objection of defendant in part and hold exhibit 14 for identification inadmissible except as to the drawings which are admissible as an accurate representation of the machines involved.

The first witness, Mr. DeFeliee, testified that the articles before the court were used at the Black River Falls plant. The next witness, Mr. Coulter, assistant chief engineer of the Dravo Corporation was familiar with the importations at bar and the conveyor in particular. The function of the pelletizing machine was described by this witness as follows:

The pelletizing machine is a special designed separate and distinct machine, which conveys a bed of pellets under a refractory-lined hood. During this time the pellets are dried, heated and cooled.

The imported articles were described as rough castings which had to be machined and subjected'to further assembly work. They are parts of a pelletizing machine or conveyor utilized in a pelletizing plant whose purpose is to transform iron ore pellets by the application of heat in order to make them suitable for use in a blast furnace. The main components of the pelletizing machine are the. palletes, the drive end assembly, the discharge end assembly, the lubrication systems, and the system for collecting the internal spillage on the machine. In the functioning of this conveyor, the pellets are fed into the machine and are passed underneath the furnace which subjects said pellets to *606 heat. The refractory-lined hood is a furnace in the opinion of witness Coulter. The conveyor has only one use and that is to convey iron ore pellets.

Mr. Malcolm, manager of processing in the development department of the Dravo Corporation, was next called to testify oh behalf of plaintiffs. The department of which he is manager deals with pelletizing, sintering, briquetting and nodulizing all of which fall under the term “agglomeration”. This was described as follows:

Agglomeration principally developed to the need for making uniform sized particles for charge into a blast furnace. Initially blast furnaces were charged with high-grade lump ore, and as these reserves or deposits depleted the means were developed to take low-grade ores, and remove the unwanted components or gangue from these ores; and the methods that were required to do this involved crushing ore and grinding, which related in the final up-graded ore product being a very finely divided particle, and this particle was unsuitable for burdening a blast furnace. So the means was required to take this fine particle and create larger particles.
One method developed was sintering, and another briquetting and nodulizing. Sintering of ores was somewhat an outgrowth of an old practice of agglomerating in plant waste material. Ordinarily, sinter plants were strictly what we called garage plants, which took waste materials and agglomerated just that. But sinter was then applied to the agglomeration of fine, ores and concentrates. Pelletizing was, in many respects, the successor to sintering in this country, and is the most popular means presently for agglomerating ore concentrates and fine ore mixtures.

The plant is sold as a Dravo Metallurgy Pelletizing Ore Plant and never as an industrial furnace. The application of heat in the pelletizing process was described as follows:

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

C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 351 F. Supp. 604, 69 Cust. Ct. 105, 1972 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2490 (cusc 1972).

351 F. Supp. 604 (C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States
83 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
A. J. Arango, Inc. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 271 (Court of International Trade, 1981)
American Schack Co. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Court of International Trade, 1980)
Rms Electronics, Inc. v. United States
83 Cust. Ct. 37 (U.S. Customs Court, 1979)
C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States
496 F.2d 1219 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1974)