Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United States

64 Cust. Ct. 97, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3202
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedFebruary 12, 1970
DocketC.D. 3965
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 Cust. Ct. 97 (Hancock Gross, 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
Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust. Ct. 97, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3202 (cusc 1970).

Opinion

Newman, Judge:

This case concerns the proper tariff classification for certain plumbing supplies imported from Japan and sold under the name of “Drain or Fill.”

The merchandise was assessed with duty at the rate of 17 per centum ad valorem under item 654.20 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), and is claimed by plaintiff to be properly dutiable at the rate of 10 per centum ad valorem under item 660.94, TSUS, as amended by the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965, Public Law 89-241, 78 Stat. 933, T.D. 56511.1

Statutes Involved
Tariff Schedules of the United States
Classified Under: Schedule 6, Part 3, Subpart F:
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:
*******
654.20 Other- 17% ad val.
Claimed Under: Schedule 6, Part 4, Subpart A:
Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices ; liquid elevators of bucket, chain, screw, band, and similar types; all of the foregoing whether operated by hand or by any kind of power unit, and parts thereof:
*******
660.94 Other- 10% ad val.

The Issue

The parties agree that the sole issue is whether or not the merchandise is a pump for liquids operated by hand or by any kind of power unit.

For the reasons given hereinafter, we sustain plaintiff’s claim under item 660.94, TSUS.

[99]*99The Facts

The sole witness in this case was Herbert Fosen, long-time sales manager for the plaintiff corporation. A representative sample of the merchandise was received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit 1. From Mr. Rosen’s testimony and the exhibit, we find the following facts:

The “Drain or Fill” measures approximately 514 inches in length and consists basically of a converging nozzle. At the top of the nozzle, there is an inlet for water and a female-threaded connector which is designed to screw onto a male-threaded water faucet. Protruding from one side of the nozzle, immediately below the female-threaded connector, there is a hollow cylindrical appendage approximately 1% inches in length which serves as an inlet or outlet for liquid through a rubber hose.2 At the bottom of the nozzle there is an opening for the discharge of water coming from the faucet and the rubber hose. Also near the bottom of the nozzle there is a bell-shaped attachment containing a rubber stopper. By raising the bell-shaped attachment, the rubber stopper closes the bottom opening, so that water coming from the faucet will be diverted to the outlet at the appendage and will discharge through an attached rubber hose.

The “Drain or Fill” may be used to pump water in the following manner: A rubber hose is attached to the appendage, and the female-threaded connector is screwed onto a water faucet. The end of the attached hose is placed in the area or receptacle from which water is to be pumped (drained). When the water faucet is turned on, the jet of water will pass the opening where the appendage on exhibit 1 is located, resulting in a suction. The fluid in the area to be drained is drawn into the hose by suction and is discharged at the bottom open-hag. If the water faucet is turned off, no suction is produced, and the “Drain or Fill” cannot pump water.

When a receptacle is to be filled while the “Drain or Fill” is on the faucet, the bell-shaped attachment is raised so that the rubber stopper closes the bottom outlet. Water from the faucet will then be diverted from coming out the bottom of the “Drain or Fill” and instead will run out through the rubber hose. Thus, the bell-shaped attachment, permits the “Drain or Fill” to remain on the faucet while filling a receptacle with the use of the hose. Under such circumstances, the “Drain or Fill” becomes an extension of the hose, so that the hose need not be connected directly to the faucet before the user can alternate from pumping water out of one object to filling another object.

[100]*100“Pumps for Liquids”

Although, this court has frequently dealt with the classification of pumps under the Tariff Act of 1930 and predecessor acts,3 there was no eo nomine provision for pumps prior to the Tariff Schedules of the United States. The new provision for “Pumps for liquids” in item 660.90, TSUS,4 appears to have been derived from heading 84.10 of the Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs, generally known as the Brussels Nomenclature.5 Heading 84.10 provides for:

Pumps (including motor pumps and turbo pumps) for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices; liquid elevators of bucket, chain, screw, band and similar Idnds.

The scope of heading 84.10 is set forth in the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature (Vol. Ill, page 784) as follows:

This heading covers most machines and appliances for raising or otherwise continuously displacing volumes of liquids, whether they are operated by hand or by any kind of power unit, integral or otherwise.6

In the Brussels explanatory notes (page 786) the following description of “Ejector Pumps” appears applicable to the devices involved in this case:

A high speed jet of air, steam or water emerging from a nozzle produces a suction (or entrainment) effect on a liquid introduced around the periphery. In practice these pumps comprise a system of divergent and convergent pipes in a closed chamber fitted with inlets for the liquid, a high pressure jet and an outlet.

Although the record does not establish that the merchandise is commercially known as an “ejector pump,” the “Drain or Fill” is closely analogous to such a pump in its mode of operation.

In addition to the Explanatory Notes, supra, we have noted the following definitions of “pump”:

Engineering Encyclopedia, Second Edition, page 1010 :

A pump may be defined as a mechanical device or machine designed for elevating or conveying liquids against the action of [101]*101gravity * * *. A pump for liquids may be intended primarily for elevating the liquid from a source of supply below the pump up to the pump, or the principal purpose may be to force the liquid either to a much higher level or to some distant point by connecting the pump with suitable pipes. * * *

Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged (1953), page 2011:

pump * * * 1. Mach. A device or machine that raises, transfers, or compresses fluids * * * esp. by suction or pressure, or both.

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

Related

Rainin Instrument Co., Inc. v. United States
288 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (Court of International Trade, 2003)
Brooks Bros. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 91 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
Fedtro, Inc. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 35 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Cust. Ct. 97, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-gross-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1970.