Lodge Spark Plug Co. v. United States

44 Cust. Ct. 448
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 2, 1960
DocketNo. 64136; protests 59/3599, etc. (Los Angeles)
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 44 Cust. Ct. 448 (Lodge Spark Plug 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
Lodge Spark Plug Co. v. United States, 44 Cust. Ct. 448 (cusc 1960).

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

The cases listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, are consolidated for the purpose of trial and cover a variety of spark plugs classified by the collector of customs at Los Angeles under the parts provision contained in paragraph 369(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, or the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dee. 150, T.D. 54108, and assessed with duty at the rate of 12% per centum ad valorem, 11% per centum ad valorem, or 11 per centum ad valorem, depending upon the date of importation.

Plaintiffs, in their protests or by timely amendment filed thereto, claim said spark plugs to be properly classifiable under the parts provision of either paragraph 353 or 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, both of which paragraphs provide for “Internal-combustion engines, carburetor type,” with the rate of 8% per centum ad valorem prescribed in both paragraphs.

The pertinent portions of the paragraphs involved herein are as follows:

Paragraph 369(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802:

Parts (except tires and except parts wholly or in chief value of glass) for any of the articles enumerated in subparagraph (a) or (b) of paragraph 369, Tariff Act of 1930, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for:
* * * * * * *
Other_12%% ad val.

Paragraph 369(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108:

[449]*449Parts (except tires and inner tubes and except A B parts wholly or in chief value of glass), finished 1114% ad val. 11% ad val. or unfinished, not specially provided for, for any of the articles described in item 369(a) or 369(b) in this Part.

Paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dee. 121, T.D. 52739:

Articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, fans, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, ranges, washing machines, refrigerators, and signs, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:
Internal-combustion engines, carburetor type_8%% ad val.
* * * * * * *
Parts, finished or unfinshed, wholly or in chief The same rate of duty as the value of metal, not specially provided for, of ar- articles of which they are tides provided for in any item 353 of this Part parts. (not including X-ray tubes or parts thereof).

Paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739:

Machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for:
Internal-combustion engines of the carburetor type_8%% ad val.
* * * * * * *

Parts, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of metal or porcelain, of any article provided for in any item 372 in this Part:

* * * * * * *
Other_ The rate for the article of which they are parts.

The record in this case consists of the testimony of one witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs and the introduction of seven exhibits. Mr. Warren, president of the Lodge Spark Plug Co., Inc., testified that his company is a distributor of spark plugs throughout the United States; that his duties require him to be an expert in this field; that the imported spark plugs are grouped in various categories; that one grouping denominates the spark plugs as regular spark plugs, racing-type spark plugs, platinum spark plugs, and silver spark plugs; that the spark plugs are further broken down into the physical dimensions of the plugs and cover those denominated as 10 millimeters, 12 millimeters, 14 millimeters, and 18 millimeters, and have a reach of one-quarter inch, one-half inch, three-eighths inch, seven-sixteenths inch, five-eighths inch, and three-quarters inch; that the reach is the distance from the shell of the spark plug to the end; that the electrodes in the regular spark plugs are made of a niekle alloy, while the racing spark plugs have electrodes made of either platinum and nickel or copper and nickel to permit a greater transfer of heat; that the platinum spark plugs are made of a platinum alloy which permits a considerably longer life of the spark plugs, while the silver spark plugs have electrodes made of nickel and silver alloy and have a life expectancy halfway between the regular spark plugs and the platinum spark plugs. Mr. Warren introduced a sample of a racing type spark plug, which was received as plaintiff’s exhibit 1 and identified by the manufacturer’s code as 10R49, which is a 10-millimeter spark plug, having a half-inch reach; plaintiffs’ exhibit 2, identified by the manufacturer’s code as ON, represented a standard 14-millimeter spark plug, having a half-inch reach; plaintiffs’ exhibit 3 is a standard 18-millimeter spark plug with a half-[450]*450inch reach and is identified by the manufacturer’s code as SC; plaintiffs’ exhibit 4 is a platinum spark plug, having a diameter of 14 millimeters and a half-inch reach and is designated by the manufacturer’s code as CNP.

The witness testified that his firm sells the imported spark plugs at three levels of distribution, warehouse, jobber, and dealer; that the first level is made up of engine manufacturers or other representatives, and the plugs are fitted as original equipment in marine, motorcycle, industrial, automotive, and aircraft engines; that the purpose of the spark plug is to ignite the gasoline, and an internal-combustion engine of the carburetor type could not operate without a spark plug.

Mr. Warren then testified that he had prepared charts, based upon his own personal information and the information of his competitors, to determine the proper type of plug to be utilized in each engine. These charts were received in evidence as plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibit 6 and collective illustrative exhibit 7.

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

Related

Rkw Klerks Inc. v. United States
94 F.4th 1374 (Federal Circuit, 2024)
Airco Speer Division, Air Reduction Co. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 737 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
U.S. Divers Co. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 721 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 615 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
John H. Faunce Phila., Inc. v. United States
58 Cust. Ct. 32 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
National Carloading Corp. v. United States
53 C.C.P.A. 57 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)
Warehousing Service, Inc. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 260 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
United States v. Ford Motor Co.
51 C.C.P.A. 22 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)
Engine Imports, Inc. v. United States
51 Cust. Ct. 264 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)
Lodge Spark Plug Co. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 158 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Ford Motor Co. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 265 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
National Carloading Corp. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 372 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Harrigan Auto Parts Co. v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 168 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Cust. Ct. 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lodge-spark-plug-co-v-united-states-cusc-1960.