Liebert v. United States

63 Cust. Ct. 357, 305 F. Supp. 1400, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3746
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1969
DocketC.D. 3919
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 Cust. Ct. 357 (Liebert 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
Liebert v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 357, 305 F. Supp. 1400, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3746 (cusc 1969).

Opinions

Nao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case, imported from Canada and entered at the port of Blaine, Washington, is described as back up roll assemblies. It was assessed with duty at 14 per centum ad valorem under item 614.53 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as parts of machine tools, and is claimed to be dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem under item 674.55, as an accessory machine used with machine tools.

The pertinent provisions of said tariff schedules are as follows:

Work and tool holders and other parts of, and accessories used principally with, machine tools; * * *:
674.50 Tool holders- 15% ad val.
Other :
Parts:
674.51 Cast-iron (except malleable cast-iron) parts * * *- 3% ad val.
Other:
674.52 Parts of metal-working-
machine tools for cutting or hobbing gears- 20% ad val.
674.53 Other parts_ 14% ad val.
Accessories:
674.55 Machines- 10% ad val.

At the trial plaintiff called Reginald E. Tyler, vice-president of Durand Machine Company Limited, manufacturer of machinery for processing plywood. He has been with the company for 13 years and his duties include sales, coordination of engineering, customer relations, follow-up to see that the machinery is performing satisfactorily, and all operations of the company in general. He is familiar with the item identified as a back up roll assembly, having designed the original one in 1965.

The witness testified that a back up roll assembly consists of the main pivoting head and pressure rollers, the hydraulic cylinder to exert pressure, the carrying frame, the hydraulic pump unit to supply the oil pressure to the cylinder, and the electric controls. It has its own carrying structure which has to be bolted to a floor adjacent to, or above, or on a veneer lathe, or it can go on a subsidiary framework, such as where there is a charger, an automatic device for putting logs into the lathe. It is designed and used solely with a veneer lathe, which produces the product known as veneer.

A veneer lathe, according to the witness, rotates a log cut to veneer dimension, usually 106 inches. Then a knife comes in contact with the [359]*359log and goes in a set distance per revolution to give a cut of a predetermined thickness, thus producing veneer. In the course of this operation the veneer block or log is peeled down, the knife gets closer to the core, the block gets smaller in diameter and its strength reduces. When it is about 10 inches in diameter, the back up roll can be lowered onto the log where it exerts pressure on the log to stop it from bowing out and hold it flat, thus allowing a better quality and more even thickness of veneer to be peeled. It is effective only in small diameters.

A brochure illustrating the merchandise and describing its features was received in evidence as exhibit 1. It depicts a large machine having a split type head with rollers resting on a log in a veneer lathe.

The witness stated that a back up roll assembly is not essential to the cutting of veneer by the lathe; that lathes have been made for over a hundred years without back up rolls, and that he had seen many plants which do not have back up rolls. He said that only certain logs are capable of being peeled down to a small enough diameter and that the same log could be cut without the back up roll. He explained that when a log is about 6y2 inches or less in diameter, the use of the back up roll enables veneer of more even thickness to be cut because it holds the log in position and stops it from moving out from the knife.

Mr. Tyler testified that back up assemblies are designed to be used only with veneer lathes for the purpose described. They are not intended for a specific lathe but the mounting can be made to fit a particular lathe. The same back up roll can be used in many lathes.

The brochure, exhibit 1, states:

This machine has been designed primarily to prevent cores from bowing out in the centre owing to knife and pressure bar forces in a veneer lathe. This allows cores to be peeled down to a minimum diameter.
* * * * * * *
Advantages
1. Veneer produced from blocks of all diameters in fiat and buckle-free giving proportionately more sheet return.
‡ ‡ ‡ $ * # :f:
3. With the holding force against the block there is more tendency for a faulty log to hold together, giving more veneer output before breaking up.

The issue presented is whether the back up roll here involved is a part of a veneer lathe (a machine tool) or is an accessory principally used therewith. Since Congress has included parts and accessories in the superior heading to items 614.50-674.56 and has provided for them separately, it is evident that it was making a distinction between them; [360]*360In the Tariff Classification Study of November 15, 1960, which was before Congress when the Tariff Classification Act of 1962 was enacted, it is stated (schedule 6, pp. 272-278) :

There are a number of jigs, fixtures, and other subsidiary devices or accessories which are principally used in connection with machine tools. Such devices, although principally used with machine tools, are not parts of any particular tool. * * *

This appears to mean that subsidiary devices used with various machine tools which are not parts of a particular machine tool are provided for as accessories. Cf. Chas. Kurz Co. v. United States, 57 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D. 2733 (1966); Engis Equipment Company v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 436, C.D. 3413, 284 F. Supp. 798 (1969). It leaves open the question of whether a device which is used exclusively with a particular machine tool is a part thereof or an accessory.

What makes a particular article a part of another for tariff purposes has been frequently litigated. While many general statements have been made on the subject, the decided cases do not establish any set rule or principle for determining what is a part in all instances. Gallagher & Ascher Company v. United States, 52 CCPA 11, C.A.D. 849 (1964).

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

Related

Henry A. Wess, Inc. v. United States
71 Cust. Ct. 17 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
United States v. Liebert
450 F.2d 1405 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 Cust. Ct. 357, 305 F. Supp. 1400, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebert-v-united-states-cusc-1969.