Humphreys v. United States

62 Cust. Ct. 242, 297 F. Supp. 185, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3585
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 13, 1969
DocketC.D. 3736
StatusPublished

This text of 62 Cust. Ct. 242 (Humphreys 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
Humphreys v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 242, 297 F. Supp. 185, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3585 (cusc 1969).

Opinion

FoRd, Judge:

The subject merchandise, invoiced as high carbon cut track spikes, was classified under the provision “Other” as provided for in item 646.30 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, at 1.2 cents a pound. Plaintiff claims the articles are classifiable under TSUS item 646.28 as “cut” spikes over 2 inches in length, at 0.2 cent a pound.

The relevant tariff provisions, set forth under subpart D of part 3, schedule 6, are as follows:

Brads, nails, spikes, staples, and tacks, all the foregoing, not described in the foregoing-provisions of this,subpart, of base metal:
Of iron or steel (except articles with heads of nonferrous metals) :
Of one piece construction:
Made of round wire:
646.25 Under 1 inch in length and under 6.065 inch in diameter-* * *
646.26 1 inch or more in length and 0.065 inch or more in diameter_* * *
Cut:
646.27 Not over 2 inches in length_* * *
646.28 Over 2 inches in length- 0.20 per lb.
646.30 Other_1.20 per lb.

There is no disagreement concermng the statutorily significant facts that the articles are spikes made of steel of one piece construction over 2 inches in length. Accordingly, the only issue is whether the spikes are “cut” within the meaning of item number 646.28, as plaintiff claims.

Before reviewing the evidence submitted concerning the subject spikes, it would not be premature to determine the tariff meaning of the word “cut” as it is used in the classification arrangement of the relevant TSUS tariff description.

At page 187 of the Tariff Classification Study, 1960, the following information appears:

Items 646.25 through 646.86 would cover base metal brads, nails, spikes, staples, and tacks not covered by the foregoing provisions of this subpart. Items 646.25 through 646.32 set forth in clarified, systematic form proposed provisions derived from existing provisions applicable to these products of iron or steel under paragraph 331. Items 646.25 and 646.26 covering such products made of round wire involve no rate changes. Item 646.27 is derived from the two provisions under which “cut tacks and cut brads” not over 2 inches long and “cut hobnails and cut nails” not over 2 inches long are dutiable at 7.5 percent and 10 percent ad valorem, respectively. The rate of 8 percent ad valorem is a weighted aver[244]*244age of the current rates. Item 616.28 is derived, without rate change, from the existing provision for “cut nails and cut spikes’’’’ over 2 inches long. Item 616.30 covering “other” iron and steel brads, nails, etc., of one piece construction is deri/oed from the existing provisions for “horseshoe nails, and other iron or steel nails, not specially provided for” dutiable at 1.25 cents per pound and “spikes, tacks, brads, and staples, not specially provided for” dutiable at 0.5 cents per pound. Predominant imports are at the rate of 1.25 cents per pound which is the rate reflected in item 646.30. * * * [Emphasis supplied.]

The quoted excerpt from the explanatory note clearly expresses the intention of the Tariff Commission concerning the transposition, from the Tariff Act of 1930 to TSUS, of the importations intended to be included within the competing táriff descriptions involved in this case.

Insofar as applicable here, item 646.30, under which the subject spikes were classified, was derived from the preexisting provision in paragraph 331 for “spikes, * * *, not specially provided for.” Item 646.28, under which the spikes are claimed to be classifiable, was derived from the preexisting provision, also in paragraph 331, for “cut spikes.”

Under the Tariff Act of 1930, an importation describable as a spike was subject to classification under one of three possible provisions: a cut spike; a spike made of iron or steel wire; or, a spike not specially provided for. In the relevant TSUS tariff descriptions, the same tripartition of spikes is retained. An iron or steel spike of one piece construction is subject to classification as a spike made of round wire (items 646.25 and 646.26), a cut spike (items 646.27 and 646.28) or as an “other” spike (item 646.30).

If the Congress intended any change in the TSUS provision for spikes such intent is not manifested either in the TSUS provisions or in any relevant legislative information.

With respect to the TSUS description for “other” spikes, we consider it as comparable to the usual “not specially provided for” clauses contained in the Tariff Act of 1930. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject provision for other spikes was intended to cover any spikes, encompassed by the superior heading immediately preceding item 646.25, but not specifically described in either of the subordinate tariff descriptions for cut spikes or spikes made of round wire. See, Arthur J. Humphreys et al. v. United States, 59 Cust. Ct. 231, C.D. 3128, appeal pending.

Spikes have been provided for in the tariff statutes since the earliest days. The first session of the Federal Congress, in the Tariff Act of July 4,1789, levied an import duty of one cent a pound on “nails and spikes.” Although no tariff distinction was made between various types [245]*245of nails or spikes, there was at that time a noted difference between hand-wrought and machine-made nails.

Hand-wrought nails were a very early product in America. By 1790, machine-made nails were beginning to appear, coming first from England; but wrought nails were still being used long after 1800. [Dictionary of American History, 1942, vol. 1, p. 249.]

The distinction between wrought and cut nails was first recognized, but without a tariff difference, in the Tariff Act of 1824, which contained a provision for “iron nails, cut or wrought.” A provision for spikes, “cut or wrought,” first appeared in the Tariff Act of 1842. The Tariff Act of 1883, contained provisions for: “cut nails and spikes, of iron or steel”; “wrought iron or steel spikes”; and “wire-nails, and all other wrought iron or steel nails.” Virtually, the same tripartition of nails and spikes into cut, wrought, and wire varieties continued in the tariff acts of 1890,1897 and 1909.

It would be of more than historical interest to determine the difference between cut and wrought nails or spikes as it was understood in the nineteenth century. At that time, there were three types of nails as determined by the method of manufacture — wrought, cut, or cast. The Century Dictionary, 1890, volume IV, page 3928; Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary, 1876, volume II, pages 1505-1506.

In the Dictionary of Architecture and Building, 1901, volume II, page 1006, the following descriptions were given:

cut nail. One cut by a machine, as distinguished from wrought and wire nails.
wrought nail. Anciently, a nail worked by hand, each piece having been forged separately.

The Century Dictionary, supra, in volume II, at page 1415, defined the word “cut” as meaning:

Manufactured by being cut by machinery from a rolled plate; not wrought or made by hand; as, cut nails.

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

Related

Humphreys v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 231 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cust. Ct. 242, 297 F. Supp. 185, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphreys-v-united-states-cusc-1969.