Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United States

70 Cust. Ct. 133, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3453
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedApril 27, 1973
DocketC.D. 4419
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 Cust. Ct. 133 (Inter-Maritime Forwarding 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
Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 133, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3453 (cusc 1973).

Opinion

Rao, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case is described on the invoice as “Self Adhesive Tape”-“Black Polythene Electrical Ref. 1409.” It consists of black tape with an adhesive coating on one side, measuring % inch by 22 yards, imported in rolls. It was assessed with duty at 20 per centum ad valorem under item 790.55, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as pressure-sensitive tape and is claimed to be properly dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem under item 773.30, as an electric insulator of rubber or plastics.

The pertinent provisions of the tariff schedules are as follows:

773.30 Electric insulators, of rubber or plastics_ 10% ad val.
$ * * $ * # ‡
790.55 Sheets, strips, tapes, stencils, monograms, and other flat shapes or forms, all the foregoing articles (except articles provided for in item 790.50) which are pressure sensitive, with or without pro-tive liners, and whether or not in rolls_ 20% ad val.

At the trial Fred Devan, executive vice-president of Devon Tape Corp., the importer herein, testified that the instant merchandise is made of polyethylene film and a pressure-sensitive black adhesive. The adhesive is a natural rubber thermoplastic adhesive system which contains inorganic fillers, tackifiers and plasticizers. The witness stated that both the plastic sheeting and the adhesive were electrical insulating materials and that the tape produced therefrom was ready for use in its imported condition as an electric insulator. It it used primarily to insulate copper wire at the point where two wires are [135]*135being joined together or applied and to wrap around the handles of pliers which will be used on live electrical wires. The tape is particularly suitable for electrical insulation because of its high dielectric breakdown and high insulation resistance. It is also flexible, pliable, and highly conformable. It is resistant to moisture, chemicals, oils, aging, and dry-out, and is electrically pure, containing no sulphur or other corrosive ingredients.

Mr. Devan testified that the imported merchandise is pressure-sensitive tape and is sold as such. It is not described in his company’s literature nor sold as an electric insulator. When used, it becomes insulation for an electrical conductor. It can be removed but it would ordinarily not be reused. The length of tape used in an application varies from 1 to 3 feet or 1 to 2 yards. The tape could be used for other than electrical applications but in fact is very rarely so employed.

The witness stated that he was familiar with other electric insulators, naming polyester tubing, polyester sheets, certain electrical impregnated papers, and certain chemicals, such as varnishes, epoxy, resins, and dips.

His firm handles many pressure-sensitive tapes, including packing tapes, reinforced filament tapes, double-coated tapes, transparent tapes, protective tapes, red lithographers’ tapes, marking tapes, and cotton tapes. The present merchandise falls within a sub-category, known as electrical insulating tapes. A brochure, dated October 15, 1970 (exhibit A) issued by his firm, contains a heading “Specialty Electrical and Vinyl Insulating Tapes.” While it does not list thereunder the instant merchandise, which was imported in 1964 and has been discontinued, it does list another product with a different plastic backing used for the same basic purposes, electrical insulation.

Defendant’s first witness was Kurt W. Kuenzle, area sales manager of the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, which manufactures, inter alia, pressure-sensitive tape. The witness produced samples thereof, received in evidence as exhibits B and C. He said that exhibit B is a Scotch 33+ brand vinyl plastic electrical tape, used for the same purposes as the imported merchandise. Exhibit C is a black, ten-mill, vinyl tape called Scotchrap that is used as corrosion protective tape for underground gas lines and pipes, which may be exposed to chemical vapors. It has a different type of adhesive from exhibit B, but the two do not differ markedly. They are basically the same in their electrical insulating properties. Exhibit B is used in electrical applications but also to tie the ends of ropes and to patch swimming pools.

The witness testified that he had heard exhibit B described in the trade as electrical tape, electrical insulating tape, and insulation, but not as an electric insulator. He had sold products commonly known as [136]*136insulators in the electrical trade and produced two samples, received in evidence as exhibit E, a porcelain termination Mt, and exhibit F, a single conductor termination Mt. Each Mt contains a number of articles and materials. The witness called the accordion-like segment of exhibit E, which is made of porcelain, a cable terminator, termination, pot head, or insulator. Exhibit F is also called a cable terminator and is known in the trade as an electric insulator of plastic. Both exhibits, as entireties, are sold as electric insulators, but each part is not itself an electric insulator.

Mr. Kuenzle would not identify exhibit B as an electric insulator of rubber or plastics, but as electrical insulation, a roll of plastic tape that has electrical insulation properties. He had never heard any such tape described as insulators of plastic.

According to the witness, exhibits E and F are designed for use with Mgh-voltage electric current, whereas material like exHbit B is used with low-voltage current to prevent the escape or transmission of electricity through the tape. The latter would not be used as primary insulation with Mgh-voltage current.

Defendant’s second witness was Lee Stuart, Electrical Engineer General, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. He has a degree in electrical engineering, and has worked as an electrician and as an electrical designer. He testified that an electric insulator is a product made to insulate and support bare wires. It can be removed, relocated and reinstalled. It may be made from any insulating material. An insulator is equipment, a piece made for a specific purpose, bought and sold under the name of insulator. Tape, on the other hand, is material, and is bought and sold as tape. While in a broad sense, electrical tape acts as an insulator, it does not become an electric insulator in his opinion. It would be misleading to refer to it as such. He would not accept the imported merchandise as an electric insulator of plastic.

The witness considered the cable terminator, exhibit F, to be an electric insulator. Other articles which he regarded as insulators are depicted on pages 182 and 183 of Graybar Condensed Catalog No. 29 (exhibit H). He said they were known as insulators in the industry and that if he asked for insulators, they were what he would expect to get. He said that tapes and insulators are treated separately in the Corps of Engineers Guide Specifications which he uses.

The record shows and the parties are in agreement that the imported merchandise is plastic pressure-sensitive tape chiefly used for electrical insulation purposes. The question is whether such tape falls within the provision for electric insulators of rubber or plastics, and if so, whether it is more specifically provided for as such than as pressure-sensitive tape.

[137]*137Merchandise the same as that involved herein was before the court in Devon Tape Corp. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 507. C.D. 2856 (1966), which arose under the Tariff Act of 1930.

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

Related

Sanwa Foods, Inc. v. United States
9 Ct. Int'l Trade 167 (Court of International Trade, 1985)
John H. Faunce, Inc. Masonite v. United States
80 Cust. Ct. 139 (U.S. Customs Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Cust. Ct. 133, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inter-maritime-forwarding-co-v-united-states-cusc-1973.