Home/Customs and Patent Appeals/Morganite, Inc. v. United States

Morganite, Inc. v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 207, 1955 CCPA LEXIS 170
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJune 28, 1955
DocketNo. 4805
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 C.C.P.A. 207 (Morganite, Inc. 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
Morganite, Inc. v. United States, 42 C.C.P.A. 207, 1955 CCPA LEXIS 170 (ccpa 1955).

Opinions

Gaerett, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

We have here an appeal from the judgment rendered by the major[208]*208ity of the Third Division of the United States Customs Court (C. D. 1573, 32 Cusb. Ct. 6), in the above styled case.

The rate of duty was determined upon the basis of the classification of the merchandise, and, as to this classification, one judge of the Customs Court dissented.

Both the majority and the minority of that court agreed that the merchandise, which was described on the consular invoice as “Carbon Powder,” was provided for in paragraph 216 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as finally modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade proclaimed by the President of the United States in T. D. 51802, on the sixteenth day of December, 1947 (82 Treas. Dec. 305), but they disagreed as to the specific phraseology of the paragraph, as modified, which is applicable to the merchandise.

The majority held that the merchandise falls within the provisions in T. D. 51802 for “Articles or wares composed wholly or in part of carbon or graphite, wholly or partly manufactured, not specially provided for * * *” and so correctly assessed with duty at 15 per centum ad valorem.

The appellant contends and the dissenting judge held that the merchandise falls within the provision for “plates, rods, and other forms, of whatever material composed, and wholly or partly manufactured, for manufacturing into the aforesaid brushes * * *” at 12 K per centum ad valorem.

Appellant makes no criticism of the majority’s description of the intrinsic character, or nature, of the merchandise which was derived from the testimony of appellant’s witness. We quote the following from the majority opinion:

In support of this [appellant’s] claim there was introduced the testimony of one witness, the technical manager of the importer, who testified substantially as follows: It is his duty to supervise the processing of this carbon powder, after importation, in plaintiff’s plant. He described the material in its condition, as imported, as follows:
It is a combination of various carbons, graphites, with various types of binders consisting primarily of tars, pitches, which in the processing will form the hard, compact block from which brushes are cut.
The invoice covers three types of powder which are similar but differ in composition. The witness described the processing of the imported carbon powder after importation and produced samples of articles in the form of hard, compact blocks, obtained as a rusult of such processing. He stated that said blocks are used for the ultimate manufacture of carbon brushes, which brushes are used as electrical contacts on rotating equipment.

There was also testimony tending to show that the imported merchandise would probably not be useful for any Other purpose than manufacture into electrical brushes.

It is not uncommon for provisions to be put in paragraphs of tariff acts for many different articles and provide classifications based upon [209]*209'their intrinsic character which leads to duty assessments on them at different rates. That was true in the case of paragraph 216 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as originally enacted. In full it reads:

Par. 216. Carbons and electrodes, of whatever material composed, and wholly or partly manufactured, for producing electric arc light, if less than one-half inch in diameter or of equivalent cross-sectional area, 60 per centum ad valorem; if <one-half inch or more in diameter or of equivalent cross-sectional area, 45 per ■centum ad valorem; electrodes, composed wholly or in part of carbon or graphite, .■and wholly or partly manufactured, for electric furnace or electrolytic purposes; brushes, of whatever material composed, and wholly or partly manufactured, for ■electric motors, generators, or other electrical machines or appliances; plates, rods, ■and other forms, of whatever material composed, and wholly or partly manufactured, for manufacturing into the aforesaid brushes; and articles or wares ■composed wholly or in part of carbon or graphite, wholly or partly manufactured, not specially provided for, 45 per centum ad valorem.

So far as the issue here is concerned, however, there was a subsequent modification' of the classification as evidenced by the modification of the duty rates imposed.

As arranged in T. D. 51802, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the terminology is as follows:

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

Related

Morganite, Inc. v. United States
43 Cust. Ct. 414 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 C.C.P.A. 207, 1955 CCPA LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morganite-inc-v-united-states-ccpa-1955.