Herbert G. Schwarz, Dba Ski Imports v. The United States

417 F.2d 1391, 57 C.C.P.A. 19, 1969 CCPA LEXIS 242
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedNovember 20, 1969
DocketCustoms Appeal 5326
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 417 F.2d 1391 (Herbert G. Schwarz, Dba Ski Imports v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herbert G. Schwarz, Dba Ski Imports v. The United States, 417 F.2d 1391, 57 C.C.P.A. 19, 1969 CCPA LEXIS 242 (ccpa 1969).

Opinion

BALDWIN, Judge.

This is an appeal by Herbert G. Schwarz, dba Ski Imports, from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court, Second Division, Herbert G. Schwarz, d/b/a Ski Imports v. United States, 60 Customs Court 522, C.D. 3447, sustaining the District Director’s classification of certain automobile luggage racks and ski carriers imported from Switzerland and West Germany. The items were assessed with duty at 19% ad valorem under item 657.-20 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States [TSUS], 1 under the provision for articles of iron or steel not coated or plated with precious metal, other. The importer claims that the merchandise should be properly classifiable as fittings and mountings designed for motor ve-hides, dutiable at 8.5% ad valorem under item 647.01 of the Tariff Schedules. 2

The protested merchandise was identified and described by appellant Herbert George Schwarz in his testimony at the trial. Mr. Schwarz testified that his firm has been importing these items for 10 to 15 years in quantities of 2,400 a year, that he sells them to dealers in all fifty states and especially Volkswagen Pacific in Los Angeles and a Division of Porsche Pacific in Los Angeles and Cul-ver City. The merchandise is offered in the trade as ski carriers and luggage carriers and is considered by the witness to be fittings and mountings for automobiles.

Exhibit 1 is a combination ski and luggage rack used on Porsche model 856 automobiles and is covered by protest 67/19999 and is designated on the invoice as type L 303.

Exhibit 2 is a ski carrier designed for all models of Volkswagen automobiles. This merchandise is covered by protest 67/1787 and is designated on the invoices as W 4L.

Exhibit 3 is a ski carrier designed for carrying skis on any automobile that has a rain gutter. The merchandise is covered by protest 67/1787 and is designated on the invoice as SL.

Exhibit 4 is a ski carrier designed for Volkswagen automobiles. It is covered by protest 67/4416 and is designated on the invoice as number 4078.

Exhibit 5 consists of catalogue sheets from a brochure covering automotive products, issued October 1966 by Herbert G. Schwarz Imports, depicting Exhibits *1393 1 through 4 as they appear when attached to an automobile.

Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 are designed for either the Volkswagen or the Porsche automobile and Exhibit 3 will fit any hardtop automobile with a rain gutter. Exhibit 1 is attached to the automobile by means of bolts which go through the holes at the base of the luggage carrier and into four threaded holes which have been provided on the automobile by the manufacture for installation of the luggage and ski carrier. The luggage and ski carrier can be left on the automobile or removed at the option of the consumer. Exhibit 2 is attached by two bolts on the top of the item and one bolt at the bottom. The same bolt holds the bumper to the vehicle. The installation is considered to be a simple operation.

The Plaintiff’s second witness was George A. Holcomb, purchasing representative for Porsche Car Distributors, the distributor and importer of Porsche automobiles in California, southern Nevada, and Arizona. Mr. Holcomb has installed or supervised the installation of articles like Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, on many occasions. He stated that Exhibit 1 is attached to the engine compartment door of certain models of Porsche automobiles explaining that the manufacturer provides brackets in the engine door mountings to accept the bolts, that come with the ski and luggage carrier. Exhibit 2 is attached to the Volkswagen grill where little nuts are provided on the bottom of the ski carrier to go through the slots in the grill and tighten down the bottom surface to the grill. Exhibit 3 is attached by assembling it, putting the feet on the rain gutter of the roof panel and tightening a hook that goes around underneath the rain gutter with a wing nut. Although the witness has never installed Exhibit 4, he thinks it would attach quite similarly to Exhibit 2.

The trial judge read from Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary the following definitions:

fitting: a small, often standardized, accessory part.
mounting: a frame or support; an undercarriage or part that fits a device or use, or attaches an accessory.

Both witnesses agreed that in their opinion the dictionary definitions conformed to the definition of fittings and mountings as known in the industry.

The question before the court now is whether these luggage racks and ski carriers are fittings or mountings within the meaning contemplated for those terms in item 647.01, supra.

The present item 647.01 did not appear in the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as originally enacted. Its predecessor, item 647.00, did, however, have the same superior heading.

That superior heading appears to have been derived, at least in part, from item 83.02 of the Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs, generally known as the Brussels Nomenclature, which provides:

83.02 Base metal fittings and mountings of a kind suitable for furniture, doors, staircases, windows, blinds, coachwork, saddlery, trunks, caskets, and the like (including automatic door closers); base metal-hat-racks, hat-pegs, brackets and the like.

In the explanatory notes to the Brussels Nomenclature (vol. II, page 754), it is stated that the heading covers general purpose classes of base metal accessory fittings and mountings such as are used on furniture, doors, windows, and coachwork. Included are:

(D) Fittings for all types of vehicle coachwork (e. g. for rolling-stock, automobiles, trailers or horse carts), not being parts or accessories falling within Section XVII. For example:— made-up ornamental beading strips; foot rests; grip bars, rails and handles; fittings for blinds (rods, brackets, fastening fittings, spring mechanisms, etc.); luggage racks for interiors of railway compartments, road coaches, etc.; hood hinges; window opening mechanisms; ash trays *1394 specialized for mounting in coachwork; tail-board fastening fittings; fittings for horsedrawn vehicles (e. g., whip sockets, lamp brackets and holders). (Emphasis added).

The Brussels Nomenclature provides for parts and accessories of motor vehicles in item 87.6, which, in explanatory notes thereunder, includes exterior luggage racks. Therefore, the Brussels Nomenclature indicates that luggage and ski racks are not covered by provisions for fittings and mountings suitable for coachwork.

The same conclusion may be drawn from the legislative history of item 647.-01. Item 647.01 was added by the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965. When the bill (H.R. 7969) was before the House of Representatives, the Committee on Ways and Means issued a report 3 which states at p. 23:

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

Related

Phone-Mate, Inc. v. United States
690 F. Supp. 1048 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
F.W. Myers, Inc. v. United States
12 Ct. Int'l Trade 566 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
A & A International, Inc. v. United States
11 Ct. Int'l Trade 775 (Court of International Trade, 1987)
A & a Intern., Inc. v. United States
676 F. Supp. 263 (Court of International Trade, 1987)
Nissho Iwai American Corp. v. United States
602 F. Supp. 88 (Court of International Trade, 1984)
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
585 F. Supp. 649 (Court of International Trade, 1984)
Daw Industries, Inc. v. The United States
714 F.2d 1140 (Federal Circuit, 1983)
Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States
566 F. Supp. 344 (Court of International Trade, 1983)
Nadel & Sons Toy Corp. v. United States
4 Ct. Int'l Trade 20 (Court of International Trade, 1982)
United States v. Abbey Rents
585 F.2d 501 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
Karoware, Inc. v. United States
564 F.2d 77 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1977)
Karoware, Inc. v. United States
427 F. Supp. 402 (U.S. Customs Court, 1976)
Quigley & Manard, Inc. v. United States
75 Cust. Ct. 49 (U.S. Customs Court, 1975)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
504 F.2d 1403 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1974)
Parts Manufacturing Associates, Inc. v. United States
73 Cust. Ct. 42 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)
Ornametals, Inc. v. United States
72 Cust. Ct. 209 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)
Olympus Corp. of America v. United States
72 Cust. Ct. 176 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)
Carrington Co. v. United States
358 F. Supp. 1286 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
Servco Co. v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 83 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
Sato Shoji, Inc. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 258 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 F.2d 1391, 57 C.C.P.A. 19, 1969 CCPA LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-g-schwarz-dba-ski-imports-v-the-united-states-ccpa-1969.