Holdwire, Ltd. v. United States

49 Cust. Ct. 19, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1357
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJuly 23, 1962
DocketC.D. 2355
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 49 Cust. Ct. 19 (Holdwire, Ltd. 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
Holdwire, Ltd. v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 19, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1357 (cusc 1962).

Opinion

Rao, Judge:

Certain imported steel tying wire was assessed with duty at the compound rate of 9% per centum ad valorem and %o cent per pound, pursuant to the provision in paragraph 316 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, for round iron or steel wire, valued at over 6 cents per pound, and galvanized (T.D. 51802, infra).

It is the claim of the plaintiff that the wire specified in invoices 791 and 795 of entry number 836866, covered by the instant protest, is dutiable at only % cent per pound within the provision of paragraph 317 of said act, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, for all wire, commonly used for baling hay or other commodities.

All other claims as to all other merchandise have been abandoned. This case has been submitted for decision upon a record which includes the testimony of the president of plaintiff corporation and the testimony of three witnesses for the defendant, all employees of various divisions of United States Steel Corp., together with a sample of the imported merchandise, marked plaintiff’s exhibit 1, as well as the record in the case of F. F. G. Harper v. United States, protests 365975-G, etc., 67 Treas. Dec. 893, T.D. 47729, received in evidence over the objection of counsel for defendant.

Plaintiff’s witness Alvin Napack testified that his company has been engaged in the business of importing steel wire and of distributing and selling that product throughout the United States for the past 10 years. During that time, the witness had traveled over the country, in connection with the company’s business, and had seen its wire used [21]*21many times in Los Angeles, Chicago, Concord, N.H., New York, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Hoboken, Dunellen, New Jersey, Dayton, Ohio, Phoenix, Ariz., and other places. The use he had observed was in the baling of bundles of newspapers, waste paper, corrugated boxes and sheets, periodicals, magazines, and other printed matter.

Napack further testified that he had read the record and decision in the case of F. F. G. Harper v. United States, supra; that he was familiar with the wire therein described, having seen it used many times in the manner in which it was stated to have been used; and that some of the ultimate consumers mentioned by name in the decision were presently customers of his firm. It was his opinion that the wire was similar to his importation, except for the size and weight of the coil and the diameter. The wire in the decided case ranged in diameter from 12 to 15 gauge and was imported in coils weighing from 100 to 150 pounds, whereas the merchandise at bar is 18% gauge, in 60-pound coils. The witness also stated that plaintiff imports wire ranging in diameter from 15 to 18% gauge, and that, as the gauge decreases, the thickness of the wire increases.

According to this witness, such wire is used in a wire-tying machine for the purpose of baling bundles of newspapers, waste paper, corrugated boxes and sheets, periodicals, magazines, and other printed matter. To the best of his knowledge, there are but two types of wire-tying machines used in this country, the Gerrard and the Sig-node, both operating on the following general principles:

* * * The wire is inserted through a threading device into the machine. The bundle is then baled with this wire and compressed, and the wire is placed around the bundle under tension. The wire holds the tension, thus compressing the bundles.
* * * * % * s':
* * * and at the same time permitting the operator of the machine to make a tie and cut the wire.

The bundle thus produced would range in height from 15 to 30 inches and would be under some degree of compression.

Mr. Napack further described the instant wire as an open hearth (low carbon) steel, annealed, having a tensile strength of 32 to 38 British long tons per square inch and an elongation of approximately 14 per centum.

Thomas Willard Parker, testifying on behalf of defendant, stated that he is assistant product manager of United States Steel Supply Division (formerly Gerrard Steel Strapping Division) of the United States Steel Corp., in charge of round steel strapping. He had previously served the company as territory salesman and district packaging representative, for, successively, the West and the Midwest, and, in his [22]*22present position, be was in charge of country-wide operations. As a result of bis experience and knowledge, be was tborougbly familiar with the Gerrard strapping or tying machines, the mechanics and function of which he described as follows:

The purpose of tlie round steel strapping machine is twofold: First, to tension a piece of round strap or wire strap around an object, then the second function is to join the ends together, thereby securing the strap around the object to be tied. In doing this, the principle of * * * the closure is merely to twist the wires around themselves three complete times, or in some cases, four times. Also, in doing this, with our round steel strapping, it is necessary to comply with certain Federal rules or American Association of Railroad rules as to the strength of the joint closure as versus strength of the strapping material itself. In doing this with a machine * * * there are * * * two metal portions called yokes that hold the wire a certain distance apart and then the twisting action occurs between these metal portions that prevent the wires from twisting along the length. The distance of the joints itself is pertinent to the strength of the wire material as well as to the efficiency or the strength of the joint itself; all based of course, on the strength of the strapping material.

In these operations, the Gerrard strapping machine can, and does, use an 18^4-gauge wire, and his company sells wire of that gauge for the purpose. But the machine has never been known as a baling machine and does not use baling wire.

According to this witness, the ultimate object of the machine is to apply tension to secure the package in transit, without effecting any appreciable amount of reduction in volume density. By contrast, he stated that the primary purpose of a baling machine is to effect a substantial reduction in volume density; and that baling machines generally use a soft basic wire of a 50,000- to 80,000-pound tensile strength.

With respect to the Signode tying machine, the witness testified that it is known in the trade as a Signode-Parker wire-tying machine, that it is both automatic and semiautomatic, but that neither model is equipped to use 18%-gauge wire, such as plaintiff’s exhibit 1.

Defendant’s witness Harold Christopher testified that he is assistant manager of the New York sales district of the American Steel and Wire Division of United States Steel Corp. While he had no formal education beyond that of high school, except for a short-term executive development course at Cornell University, he had attended numerous training courses sponsored by the company and conducted at its mills to learn the technical aspects of its various products. In all, this division of United States Steel Corp. manufactures over 15,000 different items, including all forms of wire, nails, fence, bars, electrical cables, reinforcing mesh, tacks, etc.

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

Related

Carborundum Co. v. United States
74 Cust. Ct. 50 (U.S. Customs Court, 1975)
De Vahni International, Inc. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 239 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 501 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
Brylanwire, Ltd. v. United States
51 Cust. Ct. 251 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)
Amitt Fabrics, Inc. v. United States
51 Cust. Ct. 97 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)
Holdwire, Ltd. v. United States
50 Cust. Ct. 241 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Cust. Ct. 19, 1962 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holdwire-ltd-v-united-states-cusc-1962.