Hurricane Import Co. v. United States

55 Cust. Ct. 210, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2319
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedSeptember 28, 1965
DocketC.D. 2577
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 Cust. Ct. 210 (Hurricane Import Co. 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
Hurricane Import Co. v. United States, 55 Cust. Ct. 210, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2319 (cusc 1965).

Opinion

Nichols, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of gunracks, imported from Japan and entered at the port of San Francisco on June 4, 1962. Two of the invoice items are described as gun wall racks and the third as gun corner racks. All were assessed with duty at 16% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 52373, supplemented by T.D. 52476, as manufactures in chief value of wood. It is claimed that wall gunracks and other merchandise covered by the entry are properly dutiable at 10% per centum ad valorem under said paragraph 412, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 54108, as furniture, other than chairs.

The pertinent provisions of the tariff act, as modified, are as follows:

■[Par. 412, as modified by T.D.’s 52373 and 52476], Manufactures of wood or bark, or of which wood or bark is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for:
*******
Other (except * * *)-16%% ad val.
[Par. 412, as modified by T.D. 54108]. Furniture, wholly or partly finished, and parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of wood, and not specially provided for:
*******
A B C
Other furniture-* * * * * * 10%% ad val.

At the trial, Fred Schlesinger, vice president and general manager of the home furnishings division of Hurricane Import Co., testified that he was familiar with the imported articles; that he had “created them from the Japanese sources of chair manufacturers, originally”; and that he had supervised their importation. Item 1104r-W on the invoice is a corner model, specifically designed to utilize corner areas in family rooms or den rooms. The “W” indicates it is in walnut finish. A sample of this item was received in evidence as plaintiffs’ exhibit 1. It is in knocked-down condition and consists of six pieces of wood. There are two side pieces, about 3% feet high, two pieces that fit into grooves in the side piece, one near the top and one near the bottom, a curved locking bar, and a stretcher bar. The piece that fits at the bottom is 10% inches deep, has a curved front portion measuring about 24 inches, and a straight back portion about 9 inches wide. There are places on it in which four gun butts could rest. The piece that fits near the top is 6 inches deep, has a curved front portion measuring about 16 inches, and a straight back portion about 8% inches wide. There are holes for the insertion of four gun muzzles. According to the witness, the stretcher bar tightens up the entire f ram-[212]*212ing and the curved lock bar keeps the guns in place and serves as a safety precaution. It was designed for use standing on the floor. It would not be used on the wall because average ceiling heights are 8 feet, and, according to the witness, this would almost reach the ceiling if raised any higher.

Mr. Schlesinger testified that the article, received in evidence as plaintiffs’ exhibit 2, represented the item designated on the invoice as 120A-W except that it was in natural finish and should have been designated “Ñ.” This article is a rectangular piece about 84 inches high, 23 inches wide, and 6 inches deep. The lower bottom portion contains a drawer which may be locked. Two pieces of wood extend vertically from the top of the drawer portion. A crosspiece connects these near the top. There are four holes in each side piece and the left-hand one is hinged and fashioned to open so that the guns may be inserted, after which it is closed and locked. Four hangers are on the back of the article. According to the witness, this article is affixed to the wall with heavy type wall hooks.

Plaintiffs’ exhibit 3 represented item 204-W and is similar to plaintiffs’ exhibit 2 except that it is slightly smaller, has open grooves to hold the guns rather than holes, and cannot be locked.

Mr. Schlesinger testified that these articles were first sold through the home furnishing division of his company but they found that marketing would be better through the sporting goods division, which was logical as it carried the guns for the rack. That division also sold baseball gloves, all sorts of fishing tackle, rods, reels, nets, and optical goods which go with the sporting goods department. Gun-racks are sold to sporting goods jobbers, chainstore dealers, and large retailers. They are resold in sporting goods stores, especially in the limiting divisions, or stores that carry rifles. The biggest volume of business is done by those who handle rifles and ammunition. They are sold in hunting divisions of stores, where wading boots, guns, ammunition, and sports equipment, such as tents, clothing, cots, even automobiles, are sold. These items come in a knocked-down condition and are put together by the purchaser, who would be able to hang or affix the wall models himself.

According to the witness, walnut finish is the number one finish in home furniture today so that finish was used on exhibit 1 in order to sell it to fit into existing rooms. He said that gunracks are primarily used in game rooms, den rooms, and family-type rooms, where the hunter or sportsman will display his guns, rods, and reels. In many homes which he had seen, a couple of racks were used to display gun collections. In his view, a family room can consist of an area 'having a very broad scope of recreation. Such rooms may have television sets which children watch, but if a gunrack used in the same room has a [213]*213locking device, it would be safe. He bad seen a rack without a locking device used in 'the family room of his brother-in-law who has no young children.

The witness agreed with a definition of “furniture” from Webster’s Dictionary which states that furniture is movable, or consists of the movable things in a room, which equip it for living, as chairs, sofas, tables, beds, etc. He said 'that gunracks fall within that definition because they are functional storage units and serve the same purpose as a chest of drawers except that 'they hold guns. Exhibits 2 and 3 can be made movable and generally are.

The question before the court is whether these articles are “furniture” within the common meaning of that term and as used in the tariff act. Plaintiffs claim that they belong to a class of articles commonly regarded as furniture in that they are for the use, comfort, and convenience of the homeowner, by keeping guns and ammunition safely contained in the same manner as a chest of drawers or a bookshelf. Defendant contends that they are used to store and display guns; that the type of hunting or sporting equipment with which they are sold, is not furniture; and that they are subsidiary appendages or adjuncts of comparatively minor importance.

Since the collector classified these articles as manufactures of wood, it is presumed that he found they were not furniture. Plaintiffs are required to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to his classification. What evidence has been presented for that purpose? Principally, the samples themselves, and the testimony that they are used in homes for the storage and display of guns. There is no evidence that they are sold as furniture and they were admittedly not sold in furniture stores or departments but in sporting goods stores or departments.

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

Related

Sprouse Reitz & Co. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 209 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
American Import Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 486 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Hurricane Import Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 194 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Seaway Importing Co. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 994 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Castelazo & Associates & Famous Jobbing Co. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 891 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Furniture Import Corp. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 125 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Cust. Ct. 210, 1965 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurricane-import-co-v-united-states-cusc-1965.