Lackawanna Steel Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 93, 1920 WL 19916, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 22
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMarch 24, 1920
DocketNo. 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 10 Ct. Cust. 93 (Lackawanna Steel Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lackawanna Steel Co. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. 93, 1920 WL 19916, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 22 (ccpa 1920).

Opinion

De Vries, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

While there is controversy herein as to the representative character of the two collective samples in evidence, it may well be assumed for the purposes of this case that those offered by the Government as official samples are representative of the importations. They consist of mixed pieces of stone concededly ranging in sizes of from one-sixteenth of an inch to 4 inches in dimensions. The importations were of carload lots by The Lackawanna Steel Co., at the port of Buffalo, and shipped by the Canadian Crushed Stone Co., which company quarried the stone at and shipped it from Dundas, Ontario, [94]*94Canada. While the record is not as clear as might be desired, it does make certain that the stone is limestone of a variety known as dolomite. The stone is first blasted out of the cliff at the quarry; this results in pieces “from nothing * * * up to twenty tons." The larger pieces have to be • reblasted before they can be handled. It is handled at the quarry with a steam shovel. The stone thus blasted is then transported across the quarry to the “breaker," which is described as “a big crusher breaker; a big cast-iron machine.” “It has a jaw, a crusher — a big head in the middle which gyrates like'a coffee grinder.” The Canadian Crushed Stone Co. has two of these crusher breakers at its plant, each producing different-sized crushed stone. They can be “set” to produce the size of crushed stone desired, from a little larger than 2 inches up to about 6 or 8 inches in size. With the aid of these two crusher breakers the company can turn out crushed stone of any size it desires between those two limits. After leaving the crusher the crushed stone goes upon what is called a “belt conveyor,” which “runs from the crusher to the bin building * * * something over 100 feet distance away.” At this point the material can be diverted to run either directly into bins to be therefrom loaded on the cars or by another course into a screen.

It is fairly shown by this record that in producing these importations by this appellant the stone, for facility in production, travels over both courses. The screen is a long cylindrical one, commencing with a small mesh and going to larger ones. The crushed stone goes through it, as it revolves, and drops through the different-sized meshes into separate bins, so that the crushed stone in each bin is practically uniform in size. The meshes of this screen run from three-eighths of an inch up to 3 inches in size. Thereafter the cars are indiscriminately loaded from all the bins, whereby the screened and unscreened rock is mixed with the resultant product above described and as represented by the official exhibit. The effective process employed, therefore, which puts the stone in its imported condition is the crusher, and, as imported, this stone is, therefore, not of uniform or selected sizes. The testimony is uncontradicted that these importations are of the crudest forms produced by the exporters, and that it is rendered into the imported sizes solely to facilitate and economize in transportation. The record also fairly establishes, and it is nowhere therein controverted by any .testimony, but, on the contrary, comports with careful and economical business methods, that producers of stone to be sold for a variety of purposes would so render it, as is here done, that the particles could be loaded reasonably close together in cargo in economy of space and could be handled by ordinary methods of labor instead of extraordinary devices.

[95]*95The record further makes clear that these exporters at the same plant produce and extensively market stone which is screened, thereby producing such in comparatively uniform sizes, for road work, building construction, and other uses, which uses demand materials thus treated; and that this screened stone is higher in price than that sold these importers. Such screened stone as imported is ready for its ultimate use as material for construction. These importations, however, are not so ready for ultimate use. On the contrary, they must undergo several processes, including a preliminary one of crushing, before they are made ready for ultimate use. The record clearly establishes that the crushing at the quarries for the purposes of transportation does not supersede and render unnecessary crushing at the destination of and for final use. These further crushing and other processes are described by a representative of the importing firm as follows:

• This stone is used by us in the open-hearth furnaces in the condition of calcine [calcined] dolomite, and after receipt by us it is first crushed. It is first — the cars are taken on a large car dump and bodily turned over. They drop through a hopper into a bin that will hold perhaps two cars. From that bin it is lifted by a belt conveyor to a bin that will hold perhaps four carloads. From that bin it goes by means of another belt conveyor to a gyrating crusher that is set at perhaps two and a half inches. From that first crusher it goes to a roll crusher that is set at one inch or one inch and a quarter. From that roll crusher it is elevated again by means of a belt conveyor to a bin holding perhaps 150 to 160 tons, three or four carloads; and this bin is placed at the receiving end of a long incline kiln. This kiln is 125 feet long, 8 feet in diameter, and a long cylindrical steel drum that is inclined one-half inch to the foot. This kiln is lined with a refractory material, and the crushed stone is introduced at one end. As the kiln revolves, this stone, of course, gradually works its way down. Now, the function of this inclined kiln is to calcine the stone. For that purpose it is fired with dry pulverized coal, which is, of course, blown in at the other end. When the stone is thoroughly calcined — it has to be raised to a full red heat, and the carbon dioxide thoroughly driven off — it is not yet finished. That discharged from the kiln drops into a cooling cylinder, which is merely a steel cylinder that is 30 feet long and about 4 feet in diameter, known as “Z” bars, made^-perhaps made of “Z” iron. As that.kiln rotates it carries this calcined material up and drops it down through the air to cool it, the function of that second cylinder being to cool the material. From that cooler it goes to another roll crusher, set at a quarter of an inch. That calcined, fine material is then taken to the open-hearth furnaces for use. (Italics ours.)

While the crushing at the quarry may necessarily have facilitated the crushing at the point of ultimate use, by rendering larger or more powerful crushing machinery unnecessary, upon the facts of this record it can not be said that the former was done as a manufacturing process for any particular use, or for 'any such purpose whatsoever. This is made clear by the conceded fact that as imported the stone could, by the application of appropriate processes, be used for a number and variety of uses, and’ there was nothing about it or process employed upon it as imported which indicated or rendered it suitable only for its above-described use by these appellants.

[96]*96But conceding that such was the case, this record incontrovertibly ^showing that this crushing was done solely to facilitate transportation, which obviously it does, the court is not prepared to deny importers this right because perchance it may also benefit the ultimate consumer.

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

Related

Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 483 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Domestic Marble & Stone Co. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 360 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Studner v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 63 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Industrial Chemical & Dye Co. v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 264 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
National Lead Co. v. United States
51 Cust. Ct. 13 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)
Gould Monument Works v. United States
44 Cust. Ct. 107 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
43 Cust. Ct. 231 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Bluefries New York, Inc. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 395 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 261 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Chas. H. Demarest, Inc. v. United States
44 C.C.P.A. 133 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)
United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons
44 C.C.P.A. 1 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1956)
United States v. Goffigon
43 C.C.P.A. 172 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1956)
Goffigon v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 62 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States
16 Cust. Ct. 121 (U.S. Customs Court, 1946)
Protests 103339-K of Pacific National Bank
15 Cust. Ct. 237 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)
Gulf Gypsum Co. v. United States
20 C.C.P.A. 101 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1932)
United States v. Tower
17 C.C.P.A. 90 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
Ishimitsu v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 186 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Ct. Cust. 93, 1920 WL 19916, 1920 CCPA LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lackawanna-steel-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1920.