International Forwarding Co. v. United States

10 Cust. Ct. 1, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1480
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedDecember 18, 1942
DocketC. D. 713
StatusPublished

This text of 10 Cust. Ct. 1 (International 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
International Forwarding Co. v. United States, 10 Cust. Ct. 1, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1480 (cusc 1942).

Opinion

Cline, Judge:

In these suits against the United States, the plaintiffs seek to recover a part of the duty assessed on four different kinds of fresh vegetables imported from Cuba. The articles under [2]*2consideration are invoiced as “Cassavas,” “Eggplants,” “Mustard plants,” and “Hairy squashes.” Duty was assessed by the collector at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem, as “vegetables in their natural state 111 * *, not specially provided for” under paragraph 774 of the Tariff Act of 1930, less 20 per centum by virtue of the provisions of the trade agreements with Cuba (T. D. 47232 and T. D. 50050).

It is claimed in the protests that the merchandise invoiced as “Cassavas” is free of duty as cassava under paragraph 1781; that the merchandise invoiced as “Eggplants” is dutiable at 1% cents per pound as eggplant under paragraph 774, as amended by Presidential proclamation published in T. D. 45310 or at 0.006 cent per, pound under the trade agreements with Cuba, supra; that the merchandise invoiced as “Mustard plants” is dutiable at 1% cents per pound, less 20 per centum, as cabbage, under the trade agreement with the Netherlands, published in T. D. 48075, and the trade agreements with Cuba, supra; that the merchandise invoiced as “Hairy squashes” is dutiable at 0.012 cents per pound, as squash, or at 0.016 cents per pound (2 cents per pound less 20 per centum) under the trade agreements with Cuba, supra.

Twenty-seven cases were consolidated for trial. The first witness called by the plaintiffs was Mr. Thomas C. Libby who is employed by the customs brokerage firm which filed the entries. He testified that he called at the store of Tung Sang Co;, the party in interest, and obtained four samples of the merchandise, one each of the commodities herein «involved; that he saw the samples taken out of one of the shipments and he took those samples to Mr. Hackleman, who is regional supervisor with the United States Department of Agriculture,- and requested to be informed of the correct names of those vegetables.

The next witness called by the plaintiff was Mr. Yee Fat Wo whose testimony was taken through an interpreter. He testified that he is manager of the firm Tung Sang Co., the importer; that he gave Mr. Libby, the first witness, four kinds of vegetables, namely, hairy squash, mustard plant, bitter melon, and lotus root; that his firm imported the four kinds of vegetables, especially in the winter; that the mustard plants, hairy squash, and bitter melons were all the same in the various importations. .On cross-examination the witness testified that-his firm did not handle vegetables grown in the United States; that hairy squashes are different vegetables from green or winter melons, which áre sometimes called pumpkins; that he handles but one kind of mustard plants and lotus roots; that the eggplant he handles is not also called balsam pear; that the Chinese names for the vegetables in issue are-Eu kwa, mao kwa, ling gao, and kai tsoy.

The plaintiffs introduced a letter from the United States Depart[3]*3ment of Agriculture and it was agreed between counsel that if Mr. W. C. Hackleman, who signed the letter, was called as a witness he would testify to the facts contained in the communication. The letter was admitted in evidence and marked exhibit 1. The exhibit reads in part as follows:

Complying with your request of February 6, I find that according to the best references that we have on tropical fruits and vegetables the common and the botanical name of the items listed in your letter, and of which you supplied one specimen each are as follows:
Your designation Common name Botanical name
Cassava Lotus Root Nelumbium nelumbo
Eggplant Chinese Eggplant or Bal- Momordiea charantia sam Pear
Hairy Squash Hairy Squash Benincasa cerífera
Mustard Plant Green Mustard Plant Brassica juncia

The defendant offered another letter from the United States Department of Agriculture, signed by Mr. H. L. Harrington, who is designated on the letter as “Marketing Specialist.” The parties agreed that if Mr. Harrington was called as a witness he would testify to the matters set forth in the letter and it was admitted in evidence and marked exhibit 2. The pertinent parts of the exhibit read as follows:

Complying with your telephone request of yesterday, I am listing below the botanical names for the common varieties or kinds of cabbage, cassava, eggplant, and squash. The cassava is grown only in the tropics or subtropical countries, and therefore it might be questionable whether we could say that it is a common variety for the United States. I am listing two kinds, but it is my understanding that only the sweet cassava is used as a kitchen vegetable. I am also listing three different kinds of squash, all of which are common. Since one of the vegetables mentioned in previous correspondence was a member of the mustard family, I am also listing the botanical names for two kinds of mustard grown in the United States, although you did not specifically request this information:
Bitter Cassava Manihot manihot
Sweet Cassava Manihot palmata aipi
Mustard Brassica alba (white)
Brassica Japónica (more common)
Cabbage Brassica olerácea — var. capitata
Eggplant Solanum melongena
Squash Curcurbita maxima (winter squash)
Curcurbita pepo (summer squash)
Curcurbita moschata (often called pumpkins)

The defendant introduced also seven exhibits consisting of glass jars containing vegetables preserved in formaldehyde as follows: No. 3, hairy squash; No. 4-A and 4-B, mustard plants; No. 5, eggplant similar to the merchandise so invoiced; No. 5, lily root similar to the merchandise in issue; illustrative exhibit A, sweet cassava or Manihot palmata aipi; illustrative exhibit B, eggplant which bears the technical name Solanum melongena.

[4]*4The defendant called Mr. Fong Mar, who is a Chinese interpreter employed by the Government. He testified to the meaning of the Chinese-words which witness Yee Fat Wo used in describing the commodities, as follows:

A Fu kwa means bitter melon. Mao kwa means hairy squash. Ling gao means lotus root. Kai tsoy means mustard plant.

Counsel for the plaintiffs confines the argument in his brief to the eggplant and the hairy squash and admits that there is nothing in the record to sustain the claim that the merchandise invoiced as “mustard plants” is cabbage or that the goods invoiced as “cassavas,” which are shown to be lotus roots, are one of the products covered by paragraph 1781. The plaintiffs argue in their brief that in determining what the merchandise may be for tariff purposes, the botanical names of the articles are of no importance, citing Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304; Hummel Chemical Co. v. United States, 29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 178, C. A. D. 189.

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

Related

Nix v. Hedden
149 U.S. 304 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Schade & Co. v. United States
5 Ct. Cust. 465 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1914)
Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd. v. United States
5 Cust. Ct. 180 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Cust. Ct. 1, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-forwarding-co-v-united-states-cusc-1942.