Cody Manufacturing Co. v. United States

33 Cust. Ct. 377, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1954
DocketNo. 58428; protest 221782-K (New York)
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 Cust. Ct. 377 (Cody Manufacturing Co. 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
Cody Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 33 Cust. Ct. 377, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827 (cusc 1954).

Opinion

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This protest relates to merchandise described on the invoices as dolls for musical movements. The collector assessed duty thereon at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under the provision for dolls in paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898. Plaintiffs claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable at only 20 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1541 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with Switzerland, T. D. 48093, for “Music boxes and parts thereof, not specially provided for.”

All of the evidence before us was offered by the secretary of the importing corporation, the Cody Manufacturing Co., Inc., whose business was described by the witness as “Manufacturing of music boxes.” The witness identified a sample of the imported merchandise (plaintiffs’ exhibit 1). An examination thereof shows- that the merchandise in question is a miniature female figure, 2 inches high, composed of a plastic material. The upper body, consisting of the head, arms, and torso, is molded as one part of the figure. The legs, which are made separately, are suspended by wire loops so as to hang loosely from the torso. The figure is garbed in what is apparently intended to simulate a ballet skirt that is gathered at the waist. Around the waist, there is wound a gilt thread, giving the appearance of a sash. The facial features and the hair are painted on the plastic figure. Extending downward from the bottom of the [378]*378torso, and permanently affixed thereto, is a pointed metal shaft, 2% inches long, that dedicates the article for use with a music box (plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibit 2). This music box consists of a round metal shell, with a wooden base and wooden legs, that serves as the housing for the musical movement, which is fastened to the wooden base with screws. Extending upward, through the center of the shell, is a hollow metal tube or sleeve, into which is fitted the metal shaft affixed to the figure, as hereinabove described. A blocking screw, attached to the metal shaft, locks the figure to a small metal platform that is secured to a special gear fitted to the musical movement. The musical movement, per se, consists of a metal cylinder with minute pegs projecting from the surface. When the music box is in operation, small metal teeth strike the pegs as the cylinder revolves, thereby reproducing musical tones. The music box is put in operation by winding at the bottom just “like you would an ordinary watch or clock.” When the movement is wound and released, musical sounds or melodies are emitted, and the metal platform vibrates. The vibration causes the metal shaft to move up and down, and whirl around, giving the effect of a dancing figure. The figure is enclosed in a hollow plastic cover, which fits tightly around the upper level of the top of the metal shell that houses the musical movement.

The witness further testified that the metal housing, as well as the musical movement, the hollow metal sleeve, and the blocking screw, are also imported parts; that an equal number of each is ordered “at all times”; and that, after the various components are received, they are assembled to form the music box with the plastic figure (illustrative exhibit 2, supra). On cross-examination, the witness admitted that the miniature figure has nothing to do with the musical sounds that are emitted.

It should be borne in mind that the shipments in question contained only the merchandise which the collector classified as a doll. Hence, our consideration herein must be confined to that particular item.

Plaintiffs’ case, as stated in counsel’s brief, is based on the premise that “the merchandise at bar is only imported to be incorporated into musical boxes and has no other uses,” so, therefore, it should -be classified as parts of music boxes under said amended paragraph 1541 (a).

The term, “music box,” as defined by leading dictionary authorities, is a case or a cabinet, housing a mechanism that plays tunes or melodies automatically. Specifically, Webster’s .New International Dictionary defines “music box” as “a box or case containing apparatus moved by clockwork so as to play certain tunes automatically.” Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary embodies the definition of “music box” under the word “musical,” wherein “m. box” is defined as “a case or cabinet containing a mechanism contrived to reproduce melodies, and frequently possessing additional musical effects. The notes are produced by the vibrations of steel teeth struck by minute pegs projecting from the surface of a revolving cylinder.”

Under the foregoing definitions, the article in question is not a part of a music box, within the judicial interpretation of the word “part,” as set forth in the ease of United States v. Willoughby Camera Stores, Inc., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 322, T. D. 46851, as follows:

It is a well-established rule that a “part” of an article is something necessary to the completion of that article. It is an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the article to which it is to be joined, could not function as such article. [Italics quoted.] Welte & Sons v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 164, T. D. 34249; United States v. American Steel & Copper Plate Co., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 139, T. D. 41673; Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 285, T. D. 42872, and cases cited therein; United States v. John Wanamaker, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 548, T. D. 43266.
[379]*379The mere fact that two articles are designed and constructed to be used together, does not necessarily make either a part of the other. Columbia Shipping Co. et al. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 281, T. D. 39085; United States v. Kalter Mercantile Co. et al., 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 540, T. D. 39680.

While the article in question is designed and constructed for use, and is exclusively used, with a music box, the present merchandise is not an integral, constituent, or component part, without which the music box could not function. The basic element of a music box is the mechanism contrived to produce musical sounds or melodies. Plaintiffs’ witness admitted that the merchandise in question does not in any way cause or control the musical tones reproduced by the music box with which it is connected.

Counsel for defendant, in his brief, cites cases where the merchandise involved included a music box mechanism. Thorens, Inc. v. United States, 31 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 125, C. A. D. 261; Lador, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 304. In the Thorens, Inc., case, supra, the commodity consisted of a toilet paper distributor or roll holder, equipped with a music box mechanism that played a tune when the roll was operated. The Lador, Inc., case, supra, related to merchandise consisting of a music box, on the top of which was a metal holder equipped with a set of three thumbscrews for holding a small Christmas tree. In each of the said cases, the court found that the particular commodity under consideration, with its combined features, was something more than a music box, and, therefore, in both instances, the merchandise was excluded from classification under the provision for music boxes and parts thereof in said modified paragraph 1541 (a).

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

Related

Pukel v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 672 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
United States v. Cody Manufacturing Co.
44 C.C.P.A. 67 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)
Cody Manufacturing Co. v. United States
36 Cust. Ct. 361 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Cust. Ct. 377, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cody-manufacturing-co-v-united-states-cusc-1954.