C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

26 C.C.P.A. 28, 1938 CCPA LEXIS 194
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided April 25, 1938·No. No. 4112·Published

Opinion

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:2

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, Second Division.

Merchandise consisting of pulpboard, imported in rolls, was assessed for duty by the collector at the port of Buffalo, N. Y., as pulpboard, “vat-lined,” at 30 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1413 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The importer protested the collector’s assessment of duty, claiming that the merchandise was properly dutiable as pulpboard, “not * * * vat-lined,” at only 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1402 of that act.

The pertinent provisions of the paragraphs in question read:

Par. 1402. Paper board, wallboard, and pulpboard, including cardboard, and leather board or compress leather, not plate finished, supercalendered or friction [29]*29■calendered, laminated by means of an adhesive substance, coated, surface stained ■or dyed, lined or vat-lined, embossed, printed, decorated or ornamented in any manner, nor cut into shapes for boxes or other articles and not specially provided for, 10 per centum ad valorem. * * * [Italics ours.]
Pas. 1413. Papers and paper board and pulpboard, including cardboard and leather board or compress leather, embossed, cut, die-cut, or stamped into designs or shapes, such as initials, monograms, lace, borders, bands, strips, or other forms, or cut or shaped for boxes or other articles, plain or printed, but not lithographed, and net specially provided for; paper board and pulpboard, including cardboard and leather board or compress leather, plate finished, supercalendered or friction calendered, laminated by means of an adhesive substance, coated, surface stained or dyed, lined or vat-lined, embossed, printed, or decorated or ornamented in any manner; press boards and press paper, all the foregoing, 30 per centum ad valorem * * *. [Italics ours.]

It appears from the record that the imported merchandise was manufactured in Canada by a “continuous process,” which, according to the importer’s witness P. W. Codwise (a chemist in the employ of the manufacturer, * Beaver Wood Fibre Co., of Ontario, Canada, owned and controlled by the Certain-teed Products Corporation, the importer of the involved merchandise), was a “vat-lining process.” The witness described the process as follows:

This product has been made on a six-cylinder board machine. In the first four cylinders the material is the same, and that material is prepared from waste products, such as old newspapers, and' is prepared in beaters or mixers — we call them beaters — and it is run into a chest, and then it is run from the chest into a Jordan, and then into another chest, and then run on the four cylinders of the machine. Upon the other two cylinders, the last two cylinders, the stock is new pulp, namely, ground wood, and that is prepared in a separate chest, run into a separate Jordan, and then into a separate chest, and then on the last two cylinders of the machine, making six cylinders altogether. The finished board is made on a six-cylinder, a multi-cylinder, board machine which is in common use. I think that will describe it.
These cylinders are run in a vat slightly larger than — I believe the cylinder is forty-eight inches in diameter, maybe forty-two inches; I think it is forty-eight inches. There are six of those in a series and there is a continuous felt that runs along and picks the layer of stock from the first cylinder, and it is caught and there is a roller above it that presses it. Then the felt goes on to the next cylinder and picks this layer from it and- it goes on to another cylinder. This layer is always on the bottom of the felt, and finally after the sixth cylinder it goes through a press roller.

We quote further from the testimony of the witness, relative to the process used in the manufacture of the involved material:

Q. The two last cylinders which you said have slightly different material from the first four cylinders; is that material which appears upon these exhibits upon which writing is placed? — A. Correct.
♦ Sji ‡ Jfc * * *
Q. What is the difference, chemically, if you can give it, between the material in the two last vats and that in the first four? — A. Chemically, I would say there was practically no difference. It is a matter of appearance.
[30]*30Q What is that difference in appearance? — A. Well, we are using our work stock, dirty stock, in the first four, whereas we are using clean, new stock, in the last two.
Q. Is there any coloring matter in the last two cylinders? — A. Yes; there is Bismarck brown and Metmil yellow.
Q. About what percent is there of that coloring matter? — A. Approximately, five to six ounces of each to a ton.
Q. Does that increase or decrease the value of the merchandise? — A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever ship merchandise composed only of the material in the first four cylinders? — A. Well, I would say our center stock is of that general character.
Q. That is on the four cylinders? — A. Yes.
Q. It is all the same material? — A. Yes.
Q. The only difference between that and the merchandise here under consideration is in the last two cylinders there is a slight amount of coloring matter and it is made out of cleaner material? — A. Yes.
Q. No other difference? — A. I do not think so.
* * * * * * %
X Q. Do those horizontal cylinders which revolve separate the stock? — A. Yes,
X Q. Each produces a separate layer of paper? — A. Yes-.
X Q. The layers are carried along the machine and while still moist are combined into one sheet by pressure without the use of adhesive? — A. Yes.
* * * * * * *
R. Q. The first four layers are prepared and attached together just exactly as the two last layers are attached to the completed first four; is that correct? — • A. Yes.
R. Q. Mr. Codwise, thát is from the manufacturing standpoint known as a vat lining process; is it not? — A. It is.

The witness identified Exhibits 1 to 5, inclusive, as representative of the involved merchandise. So far as the issues here are concerned, such differences as may exist in the exhibits are of no consequence.

The importer’s witness Roswell F. Thoma, president of the Roswell F. Thoma PaperBox Co. (manufacturer of paper boxes out of “vat-lined board” and “lined board”), stated that his company used so-called “chipper board, vat-lined, or what is known as news board, vat-lined”; that the involved merchandise, or at least that of which Exhibits 2 and 3 are representative, “has lining board on it”; that it might be news vat-lined board; and that, due to insufficient strength,, it was unsuitable for the type of paper boxes manufactured by his company. The witness then stated:

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

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 26 C.C.P.A. 28, 1938 CCPA LEXIS 194 (ccpa 1938).

26 C.C.P.A. 28 (C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.