Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States

640 F. Supp. 1331, 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 258, 10 C.I.T. 258, 1986 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 1242
United States Court of International Trade·Decided April 18, 1986·No. Court 80-9-01501·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order

DiCARLO, Judge:

Plaintiff contests the classification under item 605.05, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), of two entries of precious metal contact tape from the Federal Republic of Germany claiming that the correct classification is under item 685.90, TSUS. Defendant now seeks classification under item 605.66, TSUS. Since defendant concedes that Customs classification was erroneous, no presumption of correctness attaches to the classification urged by defendant. See Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873, reh’g denied, 739 F.2d 628 (Fed.Cir.1984).

The question presented is whether the tapes are (1) advanced beyond the state of materials and are contacts which are parts of relays described under item 685.90, TSUS, or (2) not advanced beyond the state of materials so that classification is proper under item 605.66, TSUS, as semimanufactured rolled precious metal.

The Court holds that the tapes are properly classified as parts of relays under item 685.90, TSUS.

The case was submitted to the Court on the following stipulated facts:

*1332 1. The merchandise involved in this action consists of contact tape composed of two layers, the upper being (by weight) 91.7% gold/8.3% silver, and the lower 60% palladium/40% silver.
2. The tape was imported wound in continuous lengths on Western Electric No. 544 Delrin Reels. Each reel was marked “R156”, and each reel was labeled showing the gross, net, and tare weights in grams. Each reel was wrapped with a minimum of one layer of thin polyethelene strip, and was packed in a carton or box with packing surrounding each reel. Certificates of compliance to the Western Electric purchase specification and a laboratory chemical analysis report of major constituents accompanied each shipment.
3. The imported merchandise was manufactured to, and conforms to, Western Electric Specification 900128547.
4. The imported merchandise was designed for, and used only as, contacts in AF-type telephone relays manufactured by Western Electric.
5. AF-type telephone relays are composed of a coil armature assembly and a contact spring pile-up assembly.
6. The contact spring pile-up assembly contains moveable sub-assemblies called contact springs and fixed contact sub-assemblies called transfer springs.
7. A relay can have as many as twelve moveable contact springs and six transfer springs.
8. The moveable springs in the spring pile-up assembly each have two precious-metal contacts.
9. The mating transfer spring has one contact for normally open operation and one contact for normally closed operation.
10. On the average there are twenty-four contacts in each relay.
11. Transfer springs and contact springs are designed in clusters in which four or six springs are held together by two webs.
12. The contact spring cluster is punched from a continuous strip of 0.0006 inch phospher-bronze material; the transfer spring cluster is punched from 0.025 inch copper nickel allay.
13. The contact spring clusters and transfer spring clusters appear as depicted below:
[Diagrams omitted.]
14. The contacts are welded to the ends of the springs, which are located at Area A in the depiction under paragraph 13 of this Stipulation.
15. The shear strength requirements of the welds on the contacts are:
Contact spring — 12 to 22 lbs.
Transfer spring — 20 lbs. minimum
16. The maximum of 22 pounds on the contact spring weld serves to eliminate spring distortions which result from excessive welding temperatures.
17. The contacts are positioned on the springs to within ± 0.005 inch from the reference.
18. When assembled in a relay, the contact spring contacts and the relay spring contacts must have maximum mating of contact surfaces.
19. In the earliest designed welders which welded contacts to the contact springs, each contact had to be individually welded to the spring cluster.
20. Manufacturers of contact cluster springs and transfer cluster springs developed a manufacturing method by which contact tape could be welded to the tips of each of the springs of the spring cluster which had contacts attached, and then cut to the correct length to form a contact. This method avoided the problem of feeding contact slugs and resulted in greater accuracy in contact positioning.
21. To use the weld-then-cut contact tape application method requires that contact tape be fed over the tip of the spring in a direction that coincides with the longitudinal axis of the spring.
22. To use the weld-then-cut process, it is necessary to insure the weld strength of the welded contact can with *1333 stand the shearing force of cutting and that the contact form is not distorted.
23. The weld-then-cut process is now used to manufacture contact spring clusters and transfer spring clusters. This manufacturing process is performed by an automatic transfer spring welder for transfer spring clusters; and by an automatic contact spring welder for contact spring clusters.
24. The operations of the automatic contact spring welder and automatic transfer spring welder, and development and construction of the contact and transfer spring contacts are described in Exhibit 1 to this Stipulation, Califano and Scherb, Spring Assemblies for [MJiniature Relays, XII, The Western Electric Engineer (1968).
The stipulation further provides:
The entry papers and the following exhibits attached to the Stipulation are deemed admitted into evidence and may be considered by the Court without further foundation being laid:
Exhibit 1: Califano and Scherb, Spring Assemblies for Miniature Relays, XII, The Western Electric Engineer (1968).
Exhibit 2: Advertising Brochure published by Hereaus Volkert, entitled “Precious Metal Contact Tapes.”
Exhibit 3: Advertising Brochure published by W.C. Heraeus GmbH, entitled “Automatic Welding Machine, type KSA 600.”

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

Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States, 640 F. Supp. 1331, 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 258, 10 C.I.T. 258, 1986 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 1242 (cit 1986).

640 F. Supp. 1331 (Heraeus-Amersil, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Millenium Lumber Distribution Ltd. v. United States
31 Ct. Int'l Trade 575 (Court of International Trade, 2007)
Kyocera Industrial Ceramics Corp. v. United States
469 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (Court of International Trade, 2006)
Ludvig Svensson (U.S.) Inc. v. United States
62 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (Court of International Trade, 1999)
Benteler Industries, Inc. v. United States
17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1349 (Court of International Trade, 1993)
E.M. Chemicals v. United States
728 F. Supp. 723 (Court of International Trade, 1989)