Englehardt Industries, Inc. v. United States

62 Cust. Ct. 416, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3518
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedApril 16, 1969
DocketC.D. 3791
StatusPublished

This text of 62 Cust. Ct. 416 (Englehardt Industries, Inc. 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
Englehardt Industries, Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 416, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3518 (cusc 1969).

Opinion

LaNdis, Judge:

Plaintiff imported palladium concentrate from Canada, and here protests the classification made thereof by the customs officials under the Tariff Act of 1930.

The palladium concentrate was classified by the defendant as an earthy or mineral substance, wholly or partly manufactured, not specially provided for, dutiable at 15 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 214 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802. Plaintiff claims the palladium concentrate should be classified as a metallic substance in the crude state, such as drosses, skimmings, residues, brass foundry ash, and flue dust, not specially provided for, free of duty under paragraph 1664 of the Tariff Act of 1930. An alternative duty free claim under paragraph 1699 has not been pressed and is deemed abandoned.

Plaintiff’s claimed classification makes it necessary to determine whether the palladium concentrate contains metal as such, and whether it is a substance like or similar to, or belongs to the same class as the substances named in paragraph 1664, namely, drosses, skimmings, residues, brass foundry ash, and flue dust. United States v. Nichols Copper Co., 29 CCPA 186, C.A.D. 190; Philipp Bros. Ore Corp. v. United States, 45 Cust. Ct. 64, C.D. 2199; Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 45 Cust. Ct. 190, C.D. 2222. It is undisputed that the palladium concentrate contains metal as such. (R. 20.) “Paragraph 1664 clearly does not include all metallic mineral substances in a crude state, but only those ‘such as drosses, skimmings, residues, brass foundry ash, and flue dust’ containing metal.” [Emphasis quoted.] United States v. Nichols Copper Co., supra, at page 189. We next examine the record for evidence that the palladium concentrate is a metallic mineral substance such as drosses, skimmings, residues, brass foundry ash, and flue dust.

[418]*418Defendant adduced no direct evidence. Two witnesses, both associated with Englehardt Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Englehardt), testified for plaintiff. The crucial testimony is that of Dr. Theodore Papademetriou, vice-president and manager of Englehardt’s Defining Division. He testified that he had been with Englehardt for over 30 years; that he received a Ph. D. in chemistry from the University of Leipzig, Germany, and that he belongs to the American Chemical Society and to the American Chemists and Microchemical Society. His stated work with Englehardt is to refine all the platinum and metals of the platinum group, plus gold and silver and, more recently, copper and nickel. He was, he said, familiar with the palladium concentrate herein, imported in metal containers, and described its physical appearance ¡as a powder, rather gray, dark-looking, with the particles a little bit on the uneven side. (R. 16.)

Palladium concentrate, said Dr. Papademetriou, is derived by an electrolytic process used to refine copper, silver, and gold. He stated that he was familiar with the process having seen it in Germany before the Second World War and in Sheffield, England, during the Second World War. The Englehardt plant, which he is in charge of, uses the process with similar results.

Electrolysis, we are informed:

* * * is concerned not only with the refining of metals but also plays an integral part in the operational recovery (winning) of many metals, and thus it can be conveniently considered from these two aspects.
In electro-refining the metal to be refined is made the anode of the system, pure metal being deposited at the cathode under electrolytic action. The impurities associated with the metal either remain behind, attached to the anode, or fall off and form a slime at the bottom of the cell.
The reaction is based upon the fact that if two metals are placed in an appropriate solution and a direct current passed from one metal (the anode) to the other (cathode) the former dissolves, the latter showing a corresponding increase in weight. The metal dissolved from the anode acts as a carrier of the current and on reaching the cathode gives up its charge and deposits thereon. The behaviour of the impurities associated with the metal depends largely on whether they stand higher or lower in the electromotive-force series than the metal undergoing electrolysis. In general those metallic impurities standing higher in the series than the metal dissolve whilst those standing lower tend to precipitate. [W. H. Dennis, Metallurgy of the Non-Ferrous Metals, p. 36 (1954).]

Dr. Papademetriou testified, on direct examination, that when copper is electrolytically refined the copper is taken off leaving impurities consisting of silver, gold, and other metals, also some copper. The impurities dissolve into what he called copper slime. The slime, after it [419]*419is variously processed to free it of copper, is subjected to a furnace treatment to remove the remaining impurities from the silver and gold and leave a pure doré silver metal. The silver is in turn electrolytically refined leaving a silver slime which consists of gold, platinum, palladium, and some silver because you cannot “get it all out; you get about 90 per cent out.” (E. 22.) The silver slimes are subjected to a wet treatment with sulphuric acid to remove the silver. The gold in the slime is then cast into anodes and electrolyzed to remove the gold “and the platinum, palladium, plus very little silver and gold remain in solution” (E. 22) or so-called electrolyte. The platinum, palladium, and other metals are precipitated out of the solution with the addition of zinc powder. The purpose of the process, said Dr. Papademetriou, is first to gain the copper, which is present in the greatest quantity, then the silver, then the gold, and last the palladium and platinum which is the smallest amount. (E. 23.) At completion of the process, he said, ‘.‘you have the residues of the platinum and palladium, those concentrates.” (E. 24.)

Dr. Papademetriou testified that when Englehardt gets the concentrates in its refinery the material is ground, sieved through a 40-mesh and put in a mechanical blender, mixed for one-half hour and a sample drawn for assay.

Mr. Harry H. Mortimer, in charge of purchasing for Englehardt, testified that an assay is necessary because the unit price per ounce which Englehardt agreed to pay was based on the quantity of platinum and palladium contained in the imported concentrate reported in an assay certificate executed after the importation is assayed. Mr. Mortimer also stated that he reported the following quantities in the assay which he certified and executed for the various protest entries:

Entry Platinum Palladium
316 3. 66% 67%
458 (fine) 3.45% 74. 93%
458 (course) 3. 30% 74. 10%
360 3. 60% 65. 20%

After the concentrate is assayed, Dr. Papademetriou testified that it is put in a solution with a mixture of hydrochloric acid and nitric acid in water which separates the palladium; that the solution is filtered and out of the solution the palladium is converted into a mono-palladium chloride, and that the remaining platinum which has not been precipitated through regular procedures is filtered out and then rerun. Here again, said Dr.

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

Related

Philipp Bros. Ore v. United States
45 Cust. Ct. 64 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)
Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States
45 Cust. Ct. 190 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cust. Ct. 416, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englehardt-industries-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1969.