Friedman v. United States

73 Cust. Ct. 112, 386 F. Supp. 522, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3003
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1974
DocketC.D. 4561; Court No. 69/5352
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 Cust. Ct. 112 (Friedman 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
Friedman v. United States, 73 Cust. Ct. 112, 386 F. Supp. 522, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3003 (cusc 1974).

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

This case involves the proper classification of certain brass illuminating articles designed for use with one or more candles.1 They were assessed with duty at the rate of 17 per centum [113]*113ad valorem under the provisions of item 653.37, Tariff Schedules of the United States, and primarily claimed to be subject to duty at the rate of 9 per centum ad valorem under item 653.35, Tariff Schedules of the United States. The pertinent portions of the provisions involved read as follows:

Illuminating articles and parts thereof, of base metal:
* * * * * * *
Other:
653.35 Table, floor and other portable lamps for indoor illumination, of brass_ 9% ad val.
Other:
653.37 Of brass_ 17% ad val.

Alternatively plaintiff contends for classification under item 654.00, Tariff Schedules of the United States, which provides for duty at the rate of 9 per centum ad valorem and reads as follows:

Articles not specially provided for of a type used for household, table, or kitchen use; toilet and sanitary wares; all the foregoing and parts thereof, of metal:
* * * * * * *
Articles, wares, and parts, of base metal, not coated or plated with precious metal:
* * * * * * *
Of copper:
654.00 Of brass_ 9% ad val.

The record upon which this case was submitted consists of the official papers which were received but not marked in evidence and the testimony of two witnesses called on behalf of plaintiff and one on behalf of defendant. In addition seven exhibits were received in evidence.

The first witness called on behalf of plaintiff was Mr. Isadore Serot, president of the actual importer, Terra Sancta Guild, whose business is the importation and sale of religious articles, lamps, gift items and household items which are sold throughout the United States. Mr. Serot identified the various exhibits.

The second witness called on behalf of plaintiff was Father Joseph B. Graham, a Catholic priest.

Defendant called on its behalf Mr. Charles M. Eckman, chairman of the board of Virginia Metalcrafters, manufacturers of candlesticks, chandeliers, fireplace equipment, trivets, plaques, antique reproductions and lamps. This company sells to customers in all 50 States.

[114]*114Classification of merchandise under the superior heading “illuminating articles *, * *” carries with it a presumption of correctness that the merchandise is illuminating articles. In addition, paragraph -6 of defendant’s answer together with the testimony adduced at the trial establishes the involved merchandise to be illuminating articles. Inasmuch as the classified and claimed provisions fall, under the same superior heading and the merchandise is admittedly brass (see paragraph 6 of defendant’s answer), the issue to be determined is whether said articles are lamps and if so are they table, floor or portable lamps for indoor illumination.

The candlesticks, candleholders, Menorahs, lanterns and sanctuary lamps involved herein all u,se candles for illumination and are of a religious nature or contain religious characteristics or motifs used by Christian religions. The involved merchandise is not however inherently religious articles as were the candlesticks and candelabras involved in Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 54, C.D. 2611 (1966), modified, 54 CCPA 125, C.A.D. 923 (1967). Neither party alleges nor was proof adduced as to the principle of commercial designation. Therefore, the common meaning of the term lamp must be ascertained. Common meaning is a question of law to be determined by the court. United States v. Florea & Co., Inc., 25 CCPA 292, T.D. 49396 (1938). The meaning of a tariff term is presumed to be the same as its common or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In determining the common meaning the court may accept or reject evidence of such meaning and may consult dictionaries or lexicographic authorities as an aid. United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, N.Y., 48 CCPA 87, C.A.D. 770 (1961). The court in order to determine the intent of Congress in enacting the particular tariff provisions may utilize the legislative history.

In the case of American Express Company v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 208, C.D. 3573 (1968), aff'd, United States v. American Express Company, 57 CCPA 100, C.A.D. 985 (1970), the court reviewed the legislative history of the provision for illuminating articles. This court in its decision reviewed the Tariff Classification Study and the Brussels Nomenclature making the following comment:

Additional support for classification of the chandeliers at bar as illuminating articles of base metal is also furnished by the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature, 1955. Since the Submitting Report, supra, states at page 8 that “The ‘Brussels Nomenclature’ and the ‘Standard Industrial Classification Manual’ exerted the greatest influence on. the arrangement of the proposed revised schedules,” those articles included in the equivalent sections of the Brussels Nomenclature are some evidence of the intent of Congress with respect to the classification of articles [115]*115under the Tariff Schedules of the United States. The pertinent heading number of the Brussels Nomenclature reads as follows:
83.07 — Lámps’AND Lighting Fittings, op Base Metal, and PaRts THEREOF, OE BASE MeTAL (EXCLUDING SWITCHES, ElEC- . trig Lamp Holders, Electric Lamps eor Vehicles, Electric Battery or Magneto Lamps, and .Other. Articles Falling Within Chapter 85 Except Heading No. 85.22).
This heading covers lamps and lighting fittings of the following types:
* * * * * * *
(B) Lamps, including candlesticks and candelabra, using any .other source of light (animal or vegetable oil, petrol, paraffin, coal, gas, acetylene, etc.).
The present heading covers in particular: '

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

Related

United States v. Morris Friedman & Co.
524 F.2d 745 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)
Friedman v. United States
73 Cust. Ct. 175 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Cust. Ct. 112, 386 F. Supp. 522, 1974 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-united-states-cusc-1974.