Loffredo Bros., Inc. v. United States

83 Cust. Ct. 147, 1979 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1127
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedDecember 18, 1979
DocketC.D. 4833; Court No. 76-8-01789
StatusPublished

This text of 83 Cust. Ct. 147 (Loffredo Bros., Inc. 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
Loffredo Bros., Inc. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 147, 1979 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1127 (cusc 1979).

Opinion

Maletz, Judge:

This case which comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment involves the proper tariff classification of Communion pins imported from Italy in 1974 via the Port of New York. The pins were classified by the Government under item 740.38 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as other jewelry and other objects of personal adornment valued over 20 cents per dozen pieces or parts and assessed duty at the rate of 27.5 percent ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that the pins are properly dutiable at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem under item 740.60, as modified by T.D. 68-9, as other religious articles of a purely devotional character designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person.

The Statutes

The statutes involved are contained in schedule 7, part 6, subpart A of the tariff schedules. They are as follows:

Subpart A headnotes:
‡ ‡ ‡ $ *
2. For the purposes of this subpart—
(a) the term “jewelry and other objects of personal adornment” * * * does not include—
* * * * * * *
[148]*148(ii) religious articles of a purely devotional character * * *
Classified, under:
Jewelry and other objects of personal adornment not provided for in the foregoing provisions of this part (except articles excluded by headnote 3 of this part), and parts thereof:
* * * * * *
Valued over 20 cents per dozen pieces or parts:
*******

740.38 Other_ 27.5% ad val.

Claimed under:
Religious articles of a purely devotional character designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the
person:
* * * * * * *
Crucifixes and medals:
‡ * ‡ * * * *

740.60 Other_ 10% ad val.

At the outset, the parties agree that no material issue of fact exists which need be resolved by trial. Instead, the parties agree that the case may be determined on the basis of the record before the court.

Against this background, plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment has submitted the affidavit of Frank Loffredo, the president of the plaintiff-importer, Loffredo Bros., Inc.; the affidavit of Msgr. Harry J. Byrne, pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in New York City, N.Y.; copies of several pages from catalogs of companies selling religious articles; and representative samples of the imported merchandise.

Defendant in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment has submitted the affidavit of Father James O’Connor, a Roman Catholic priest who is professor of dogmatic theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y., and the deposition of Msgr. Harry J. Byrne, whose affidavit, as previously indicated, was submitted by plaintiff.

Considering first the imported merchandise, it consists of two golden-colored Communion pins: Style No. 671 (pin No. 1) which is one-half inch long; and style No. 672 (pin No. 2) which is 1 inch long. These pins are described by Msgr. Byrne in his deposition as follows (pp. 9-11):

The pin marked No. 1 represents a chalice, which is an article that is used in the Mass, the chief service in the Catholic Church, and from the top of the chalice is a round semicircle, which is [149]*149obviously representing the Host, which is received in the Mass and in Holy Communion.
The part that represents the Host has the letters IHS on it. These are representations of three Greek letters that indicate the name of Jesus.
There’s also another symbolism in these initials from the Latin and they refer to the phrase “in hoc signum,” meaning “in this sign.”
It appears frequently on a cross or on vestments that are used at the Mass and it refers to the cross as a sign of Christian belief, and in this case, the Host, the Communion Host, is a sign of Christian belief.
The pin marked No. 2 is very similar to the first pin that I described. The pin marked No. 2 is also representative of a chalice, the article used in the Mass, and above the chalice appears a circle, which obviously represents the Host received in the Mass and received at Communion.
At the base of the chalice is the word “sanctus,” which is the Latin for “holy.” Above that word is a cross.
On the upper part of the chalice, there is a representation of an angel. On the part representing the Host, there is also a cross.

With regard to these imported Communion pins, it is undisputed:

1. That plaintiff sells the imported pins only to religious article stores.

2. That the pins are advertised only in religious article catalogs and only in connection with the celebration of First Holy Communion.

3. That the pins symbolize the Holy Eucharist, one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.

4. That the pins are given to children on the occasion of their First Holy Communion.

5. That the First Holy Communion is given to a child who has reached a level of religious maturity so that he can henceforth receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

In this setting, the single issue is whether the imported Communion pins are “purely devotional” within the meaning of item 740.60.

On this issue we have the affidavit (presented by plaintiff) and the deposition (taken by the defendant) of Monsignor Byrne who was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest 33 years ago and is presently pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in New York. He has been a monsignor — a title of honor signifying membership in the papal household — for the past 17 years. Monsignor Byrne attended Cathedral College, St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers and Catholic University of America, from which school he holds a doctorate in canon law. He has also held administrative positions in the New York Archdiocese.

In his affidavit, Monsignor Byrne stated that the pins have special religious significance, representing the Holy Eucharist; that their purpose is to excite pious devotion; and that they are worn as acts of devotion. Further, Monsignor Byrne testified in the course of his [150]*150deposition that he considered the Communion pins to be purely devotional because they would not he worn on an occasion that was not associated in some way to the reception of the First Holy Communion. He added that a child would he inclined to wear a Communion pin to church on Sunday or when going to school for a period of a few months after receiving First Holy Communion.

With respect to the use of the Communion pins, Monsignor Byrne testified as follows (dep. pp. 13-14):

Q. After the Communion ceremony, are you familiar with what happens to the pins after this particular ceremony? How they are used, if they are used?

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

Related

Panation Trade Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 464 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 Cust. Ct. 147, 1979 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loffredo-bros-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1979.