M. Hohner Inc. v. United States

63 Cust. Ct. 496, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3716
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1969
DocketC.D. 3942
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 Cust. Ct. 496 (M. Hohner 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
M. Hohner Inc. v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 496, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3716 (cusc 1969).

Opinion

Maletz, Judge:

These 18 protests consolidated for trial involve musical instruments invoiced as “Melódicas” that were imported from West Germany. The importations were classified by the government under item 725.26 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as “other wind instruments” and assessed duty at 17 percent ad valorem. Plaintiff, seeking refund, claims that the imported articles are “mouth organs” and are therefore dutiable at only 14 percent ad valorem under, item 725.18 of the tariff schedules. We sustain the protests.

The pertinent provisions of the tariff schedules read as follows:

Schedule 7, Part 3, Subpart A, Musical Instruments
Claimed under:
Wind musical instruments:
725.18 Mouth organs_ 14% ad val.
Classified under:
725.26 Other wind instruments-17% ad val.

The imported merchandise consists of “piano” and “alto” Melódicas, both of which were invented in 1958. The “Piano 26” Melódica, which is made of grey and white metal and plastic, is rectangular in shape (16" x 2%" x with a mouthpiece at the top and a bottom that gradually widens into a slight “S” curve variation from the rectangle. Located on the front side of the instrument is a piano-type keyboard consisting of 26 black and white notes; on the underside there is a hand strap and a button to control moisture. The “alto” Melódica, which is made of red and white metal and plastic, is also rectangular in shape (13%" x 214" x 2") and likewise has a mouthpiece at the top. The front side contains 25 separated black and white buttons grouped in a fashion similar to a piano keyboard, the black buttons being arranged in groups of two and three, and the white buttons in a continuous line below.

The Melódica is constructed with free-swinging reeds affixed to a brass plate that is encased in the body. More particularly, the reeds are made of brass alloys which are made of particular lengths and ground to certain thicknesses and affixed at one end to brass plates that contain corresponding slots into which the other or free end of the reeds swing when they are vibrated. Each of these reeds is pre-tuned at the factory to emit a single given tone when vibrated, with the pitch determined by the length and thickness of the reed. The tone is actually produced by the operation of air pressure, channeled to the instrument through the mouth and blown into the mouthpiece. The air pressure thus generated activates the free-swinging reeds causing them to vi[498]*498brate. The selection of tones is accomplished by depressing the various buttons or piano-type keys.

Chromatic and diatonic harmonicas1 have a number of features similar to the Melódica. Thus, as in the case of the Melódica, the construction of all chromatic and diatonic harmonicas consists of a number of free-swinging metal reeds affixed to a brass plate, with each reed producing a single factory pre-tuned tone. When one blows into the instrument, the air pressure vibrates one or more reeds and this in turn produces one or more notes. The essential diffemrce between the harmonica and the Melódica is that the harmonica has a number of air slots while the Melódica has a single mouthpiece, and hence tone selection on the harmonica is obtained by movement of the mouth while tone selection on the Melódica is accomplished by depressing the buttons and keys.2

According to the expert testimony of two witnesses for plaintiff, the distinguishing characteristics of mouth organs are the presence of multiple metal free-swinging reeds affixed to a metal plate, with each reed producing a factory pre-tuned tone by the operation of air pressure from the chest, channeled to the instrument through the mouth. In this context, the witnesses consider the following to be mouth organs: (1) diatonic harmonicas; (2) chromatic harmonicas; and (3) Melodica-type instruments. Their expert testimony indicated further that other reed wind instruments are distinguished from mouth organs on the basis that the former (1) are single-reed instruments and (2) the single reeds therein are not pre-tuned and thus do not have a fixed pitch.

Finally, the record shows that in the trade neither harmonicas nor Melódicas are offered for sale or ordered by customers under the name “mouth organ.”

Against this background, we consider first the legislative history of items 725.18 and 725.26 of subpart A, part 3, schedule 7 of the tariff schedules dealing with musical instruments. It is to be noted that paragraph 1541 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — the predecessor provision for musical instruments — contained eo nomine provisions for certain musical instruments but not for the instruments in issue here. All instruments not specifically covered by paragraph 1541 were covered by “basket” provisions for musical instruments not specially provided for. After the advent of the trade agreement program in [499]*4991934, certain of those instruments which had been dutiable under the basket provisions were carved out by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) for separate rate treatment. In 1941, the word “harmonica” appeared for the first time, being specifically excluded from rate reductions granted other musical instruments. See 82 Treas. Dec. 305 (167), T.D. 51802 (1947). Subsequently, the rate of duty on harmonicas was reduced by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. See 86 Treas. Dec. 121, 213, T.D. 52739 (1951). The final rate reduction on harmonicas under the 1930 act became effective in 1963. See 98 Treas. Dec. 51, 174, T.D. 55816 (1963).

When the U.S. Tariff Commission prepared the new proposed tariff schedules pursuant to Congressional mandate, certain significant changes were suggested by the Commission and adopted by Congress. Insofar as the proposed statutory scheme for musical instruments is concerned, the Tariff Commission reported in the Tariff Classification Study, Schedule 7 (Nov. 15, 1960) at page 227 that:

* * * The proposed schedule brings together all musical instruments and parts thereof and most accessories in an arrangement which conforms more closely with the usual grouping of these mstrwments in the trade than the existing schedule does. * * * [Emphasis added.]

In accordance with this announced scheme, the Tariff Commission and the Congress dropped the provision for “harmonicas” in favor of the term “mouth organs.”

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

Related

Nadel & Sons Toy Corp. v. United States
4 Ct. Int'l Trade 20 (Court of International Trade, 1982)
United States v. Norman G. Jensen, Inc.
550 F.2d 662 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1977)
M. Hohner, Inc. v. United States
70 Cust. Ct. 165 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 Cust. Ct. 496, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-hohner-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1969.