Home/U.S. Customs Court/Fred Bronner Corp. v. United States

Fred Bronner Corp. v. United States

57 Cust. Ct. 428, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1704
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1966
DocketC.D. 2832
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 57 Cust. Ct. 428 (Fred Bronner Corp. 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
Fred Bronner Corp. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 428, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1704 (cusc 1966).

Opinions

Olivee, Judge:

The parties in this case agreed to consolidate four protests for the purposes of trial, and the plaintiff herein narrowed its claim hi these protests to the items described on the entry papers as “Models of Yesteryear” or the “Yesteryear Series,” abandoning any claims with respect to other items appearing on the entries involved. The merchandise was assessed with duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 52739, as toys, not specially provided for. The claim presented to the court is for classification as manufactures of metal within the provisions of paragraph 397 of said act, as modified by T.D. 54108, and dutiable thereunder at the rate of 19 per centum ad valorem.1

The relevant language of the involved tariff provisions reads as follows:

Paragraph 1513, as modified by T.D. 52739:
Toys, not specially provided for:
% % # * # * ^
Other-35% ad val.
[430]*430Paragraph 1513, as originally enacted, contains the following proviso:
* * * As used in this paragraph the term “toy” means an article chiefly used for the amusement of children, whether or not also suitable for physical exercise or for mental development. * * *
Paragraph 397, as modified by TJD. 54108:
Articles or wares not specially provided for, whether partly or wholly manufactured:
* * * * * * *
Composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other base metal (except lead), but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer:
j|: jj* ijj Hí #
Not wholly or in chief value of tin or tin plate:
i-i # :Ji * *
Other_19% ad val.

Plaintiff’s evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of four witnesses as well as the introduction of a number of exhibits. The defendant offered no evidence in this case.

Exhibits 1 through 5 and 7 through 16 represent the imported items in issue. They consist of miniature vehicles representing antique and classic cars, buses, trucks, engines, and the like, and range in size from around 2y2 to 3% inches long and about 1 to 2 inches high. Exhibits 1-A through 5-A and 7-A through 16-A are the boxes in which the vehicles are imported and sold. Each box, which is labeled “Models of Yesteryear,” contains the name, description, and historical significance of the scale model inside.2 The following tabulation indicates the kind and variety of the items involved herein:

[431]*431 GnUcYsA82DQ

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

Related

Dan-Dee Imports, Inc. v. United States
10 Ct. Int'l Trade 5 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
Miracle Exclusives, Inc. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 158 (Court of International Trade, 1981)
Amico, Inc. v. United States
73 Cust. Ct. 150 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)
Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States
70 Cust. Ct. 174 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
Leaf Brands, Inc. v. United States
70 Cust. Ct. 66 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
B. Shackman & Co. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 372 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Louis Marx & Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 672 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Sports Specialties Corp. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 550 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 260 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Los Angeles Tile Jobbers, Inc. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 248 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Fred Bronner Corp. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 1072 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
New York Merchandise Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 38 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Al Nyman & Son, Inc. v. United States
61 Cust. Ct. 236 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Novelty Import Co. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 574 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Davis Products, Inc. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 68 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 412 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Wilson's Customs Clearance, Inc. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 36 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Cust. Ct. 428, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-bronner-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1966.