J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States

4 Cust. Ct. 69, 1940 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 15
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1940
DocketC. D. 288
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Cust. Ct. 69 (J. E. Bernard & 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
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States, 4 Cust. Ct. 69, 1940 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 15 (cusc 1940).

Opinion

Dallingee, Judge:

This is a suit against the United States, arising at the port of Chicago, brought to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted on a particular importation invoiced as sheet filters. Duty was levied thereon at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. It is claimed that said articles are properly dutiable at the rate of 27}i per centum ad valorem under paragraph 372 of said act as machines and parts thereof not specially provided for.

Henry Eickemeyer, the importer and ultimate consignee of said merchandise, appeared in person and testified in part as follows:

By Mr. Schwartz:
Q. Describe the article imported. — A. The filter consists of a frame, or skeleton, in which are inserted plates, and between those filter plates you insert filter sheets. In order to operate the filter you need a pump to press the liquid through. By this means you overcome the resistance in the filter and remove the suspended matter, and then the liquid leaves the filter clarified.
Q. Were these two articles, both the same or different? — A. In principle, they are the same.
Q. What was the difference? — A. Just in size. One is a six sheet filter and the other is a twelve sheet filter.
Q. What do they filter? — A. Wines, whiskeys, fruit juices, vinegar.

At this juncture a photograph of the filter in actual operation was admitted in evidence as Illustrative Exhibit A, and a printed picture of the filter in a catalog published by the manufacturer was admitted in evidence as Illustrative Exhibit B. The witness drew a circle around the filter itself on Illustrative Exhibit A and marked it X, and similar circles around the connecting pump and filling machine, marking them respectively Y and Z. He then described the operation of the entire apparatus as follows:

A. The man who operates the device is operating the filling machine. He keeps adjusted the pressure on the inlet side of the filter. In other words, he watches that the pressure does not go too high.
* * * A. Because the force from the pump might make the pressure go beyond the limit, and therefore he has to keep it adjusted by keeping the throttle of the filter inlet down.
[71]*71* * * A. The filter sheets, the inserted sheets, naturally offer resistance to the liquid and without the pump force those sheets would not deliver the liquid to the bottle filling machine. * * *.

On cross-examination the witness testified in part as follows:

X Q. All the power that is generated in this filtering machine is from the pump; isn’t that right? — A. Yes.
X Q. The power of the pump in the tank forces the liquid into the filter? — A. No. The pump sends the liquid out of the tank into the filter.
X Q. The filter is no mechanical device, the filter itself? — A. The filter, itself, no.
X Q. And after the liquid comes from the filter then it goes into another machine known as a filling machine or a bottler? — A. Yes.

TRe Government offered in evidence the testimony of Charles Kruszewski, formerly United States Treasury representative in Berlin, Germany, who testified that he had visited the factory in Germany where the imported filters were manufactured. He then testified in part as follows:

Q. What does the filter consist of? — A. Well, the main thing, as I was told in the factory and as I have seen, is the sheets in the filter, itself. * * * The filter requires certain auxiliary apparatus. For instance, it requires a pump to transport the liquid into the filter, as such, and it may require certain other auxiliary apparatus depending upon what you want to do with the liquid. You may want to clarify or purify it, as you call it. And it also requires another apparatus in order to fill your liquid into the containers at hand.
Q. Those auxiliary parts or machinery, are they part of the filter, itself? — A. I have observed that you can import them separately. I understand in some cases the auxiliary parts are made in this country and the filter proper is imported. And I understand you can also buy the entire outfit as you would like it.
Q. The strainer, itself, or the filter, itself, does not require any generating power, does it? — -A. Well, it does. In order to work this filter you have to have some kind of pressure put to your liquid in order to take it through the filter.
Q. Is this pressure which you get furnished by an outside apparatus? — A. Yes, exactly because you can see it from here. Here is a connecting pipe. There is a connection on the auxiliary apparatus.
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡
Q. It is possible to pour the liquid on by hand, on the filter machine? — A. Not on that kind. It would be very difficult with that.
Q. Can’t you just pour the liquid on it by hand, on the filter paper? — A. No, I don’t think in this case you can.

Upon this record counsel for the plaintiff contend that the sheet filters in their imported condition are mechanical contrivances for utilizing energy or force, and therefore are machines within the tariff meaning of the term. We do not agree with this contention. But counsel also contend that these sheet filters are essential parts of a larger apparatus which is a machine and that therefore the imported filters are parts of a machine not specially provided for within the [72]*72meaning of said paragraph 372.

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

Related

United States v. Sheldon
15 Ct. Cust. 308 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cust. Ct. 69, 1940 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-e-bernard-co-v-united-states-cusc-1940.