International Expediters, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

International Expediters, Inc. v. United States

65 Cust. Ct. 29, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3085

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1970

DocketC.D. 4048

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Cust. Ct. 29 (International Expediters, Inc. 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

International Expediters, Inc. v. United States, 65 Cust. Ct. 29, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3085 (cusc 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson, Judge:

This protest places in issue the classification of certain articles described on the invoice as “spiral stakes”. The importation is a large corkscrew shaped piece of metal with a metal loop at one end. These articles were classified pursuant to item 790.10 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States which provides for dog leashes, collars, muzzles, harnesses, and similar dog equipment, dutiable at the rate of 10% per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that they are properly classifiable pursuant to item 666.00 of said tariff schedules as “agricultural * * * implements not specially provided for” and hence, free of duty. Plaintiff is the customs broker for Rosenel International Corp., the consignee of this merchandise.

Plaintiff’s case merits summary treatment. Plaintiff’s sole witness testified perfunctorily as to some scattered farm uses of the importation, but supplied nowhere near the proof necessary to rebut the presumption that the importation is chiefly used as a stake to which dogs are tied and therefore is equipment provided for in item 790.10. Accordingly, we find that the importation was properly classified pursuant to said provision.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

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

Watson, Judge:

This protest places in issue the classification of certain articles described on the invoice as “spiral stakes”. The importation is a large corkscrew shaped piece of metal with a metal loop at one end. These articles were classified pursuant to item 790.10 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States which provides for dog leashes, collars, muzzles, harnesses, and similar dog equipment, dutiable at the rate of 10% per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that they are properly classifiable pursuant to item 666.00 of said tariff schedules as “agricultural * * * implements not specially provided for” and hence, free of duty. Plaintiff is the customs broker for Rosenel International Corp., the consignee of this merchandise.

Plaintiff’s case merits summary treatment. Plaintiff’s sole witness testified perfunctorily as to some scattered farm uses of the importation, but supplied nowhere near the proof necessary to rebut the presumption that the importation is chiefly used as a stake to which dogs are tied and therefore is equipment provided for in item 790.10. Accordingly, we find that the importation was properly classified pursuant to said provision.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Cust. Ct. 29, 1970 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-expediters-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1970.