E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States

70 Cust. Ct. 141, 358 F. Supp. 1295, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3451
United States Customs Court·Decided April 30, 1973·No. C.D. 4420; Court No. 71-4-00041·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Foed, Judge:

This action is directed against the classification of certain female bovines described on the invoice as 9 grade heifers under the provisions of item 100.53, Tariff Schedules of the United States, [142]*142and the consequent assessment of duty at the rate of 1.5 cents per pound. All the animals involved weighed over 700 pounds each and all were at the time of importation with first calf (pregnant).

Plaintiff contends said animals are in fact cows imported specially for dairy purposes and as such subject -to duty at 1 cent per pound under item 100.50, Tariff 'Schedules of the United States.

The pertinent statutory provisions involved herein provide as follows:

Tariff Schedules of the United States:
Schedule 1.
PART 1. - Live Animals
Part 1 headnotes:
****** *
2. Unless the context requires otherwise, each provision for named or described animals applies to such animals regardless of their size or age, e.g., “sheep” includes lambs. * * * * * * *
Live animals other than 'birds:
***** *
Cattle :
$ $ $ * *
Weighing 700 pounds or more each:
100.50 Cows imported specially for dairy purposes-10 per lb.
Other:
100.53 For not over 400,000 head entered in the 12-month period beginning April 1 in any year, of which not over 120,000 shall be entered in any quarter 'beginning April 1, July 1, October 1, or January 1-1.50 per lb.

In view of the assessment at 1.5 cents per pound and the lack of pleadings relative to the quota of 400,000 head per year, it would appear these animals fall within the quota.

The question presented is twofold: (1) Is a female bovine which at the time of importation was with calf for the first time (pregnant) a heifer or a cow? (2) If the animal is a cow within the purview of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, was it imported specially for dairy purposes? In view of my holdings, infra, this question is moot.

[143]*143Plaintiff elicited tbe testimony of six witnesses and introduced two exhibits into evidence. Defendant called three witnesses and introduced two exhibits into evidence.

Mr. Robert Perry, a member of the partnership of the actual importers, Goldberg Brothers, testified that he purchases cattle in Canada known as springers. A springer according to the witness is an animal which is going to freshen, that is have a calf in a month or so. He testified he has been in the business of purchasing cattle for 13 to 15 years. The witness purchased the cattle described on the invoice as 9 grade heifers from dairy farmers in Canada. Mr. Perry testified he received a Canadian Department of Agriculture certificate of tests performed such as blood and brucellosis to indicate a clean animal. A heifer according to Mr. Perry is a young cow.

On cross-examination, Mr. Perry defined a cow as an animal that produces a calf and stated that it is possible to milk a heifer for commercial purposes. On redirect, ho admitted the heifer being milked for commercial purposes would be an animal known as a first calf heifer. According to the witness, a cow in her second lactation is sometimes referred to as a second calf heifer but this designation does not continue to third calf, etc.

Mr.’ Norman Goldberg, a partner in the importing firm, testified he has been in the business of purchasing dairy cows for export to the United States for 32 years. He indicated a heifer denotes the sex of the animal and that the counterpart of a heifer calf is a bull calf. The term cow according to the witness is a matured animal with a full mouth (eight teeth).

The witness stated the commercial life expectancy of a dairy cow is five years which would mean two or three lactations; that normally one-third of a herd is replaced each year. The witness was familiar with the publication “The Holstein-Friesian Journal.” This publication according to Mr. Goldberg has a general circulation in the dairy industry. The issue of January 1972 was received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1.

Mr. Goldberg then testified an animal in her first lactation is a cow; that an animal which will give birth to her first calf in three or four months is a springer. A first calf heifer is also a cow in his opinion. The heifers referred to on the invoice covered by this action had not calved or lactated at the time of shipment according to the witness.

Mr. Philip Goldberg was next called by plaintiff and testified he is a partner in the importing firm of Goldberg Brothers and that he resides in Connecticut. In addition to the 9 grade heifers involved herein which he sold to two large dairy farms in Connecticut, he also buys cattle in the United States. Based upon his 32 years’ experience, [144]*144it was his opinion that a dairy cow is one with a full mouth, that is, having eight teeth. Prior to that time and age, Mr. Goldberg testified they are not mature cows.

A heifer in the opinion of Mr. Goldberg is a female bovine; a heifer about to have a c,alf and visibly several months along is known as a springer. However, Mr. Goldberg stated the terms heifer and young cow amount to the same thing. For credit purposes a pregnant heifer is valued as a cow. The reason is set forth as follows:

Q,. Plow do you list pregnant heifers? — A. When we are sure they have conceived, we value them as a cow and at some times of the year, as now, they are worth more than a cow.
Q. Why is it that they are worth more than a mature animal ?— A. Well, various areas of the country want to level the milk production and the hardest time to produce milk is in the Fall, September, October, November, when the grass grows dry and the cattle have to come into the barns. In many states and in many areas, they offer a premium for milk made at that time. In Connecticut and in most of New England, as a matter of fact, for the months of May and June you are penalized if you produce more milk than you did at a given time, let’s say, last September, October and November. This money goes into a fund and if a person produces an equal amount of milk in the Fall, he gets back the 50 cents or 75 cents deducted. If he produces more, he gains on his premium. The animal producing milk in the Fall of the year is thereby worth more money.

On cross-examination, the witness admitted the involved cattle had not calved at the time of importation. In the opinion of the witness when a heifer becomes pregnant, it is considered a cow. The age at which Holstein heifers are bred according to the witness is generally 18 months of age.

Mr. Kichard Lewis, a dairy farmer for nearly 40 years, was next called on behalf of plaintiff and testified that a cow is a female bovine. This witness raises all his own calves and does not buy cows. His experience is that Holsteins are bred anywhere from 16 months of age and up. The witness then testified a heifer is a young cow, a first calf heifer is one milking for the first time, and a second calf heifer is one milking for the second time.

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

E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 141, 358 F. Supp. 1295, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3451 (cusc 1973).

70 Cust. Ct. 141 (E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LDT Keller Farms, LLC v. Brigitte Holmes Livestock Co.
722 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (N.D. Indiana, 2010)
E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States
490 F.2d 967 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1974)