Newman-Andrew Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 4, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 104
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 1, 1911
DocketNo. 149; No. 152
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 Ct. Cust. 4 (Newman-Andrew Co. 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
Newman-Andrew Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. 4, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 104 (ccpa 1911).

Opinion

De Vries, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These are cross-appeals from a decision of -the Board of General Appraisers.

The merchandise consists of what was termed in the invoice "wortles” and “drawplates.”

The drawplates are from 13 to 18 inches long by-4-| to 5¿ inches wide and from 1| to If inches thick. The wortles are approximately 8 inches long by 11 inches wide and 1J inches thick. Both are forged from the ingot through various stages to their condition as imported. The so-called drawplate contains 18 holes, one end being hammered down to form a handle, and the wortles 6 holes, all of diminishing diameters, being from 1 to 11 inches on the face and gradually diminishing to a minute perforation on the back.

The testimony is uniform that each is made by forging processes exclusively and each used as part of a wire-drawing machine.

The collector at the port of New York assessed them for duty as "articles and wares of steel partly or wholly manufactured” under paragraph 193 of the tariff act of 1897. The importers make claim that they are either-"plates” or "steel in all forms and shapes,” under paragraph 135, or "forgings of steel” under paragraph 127 of the same act.

[5]*5The pertinent portions of these paragraphs' are as follows:

193. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, * * * and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem.
127. Iron or steel anchors or parts thereof, one and one-half cents per pound; ■ forgings of iron or steel, or oi combined iron and steel, of whatever shape or whatever degree or stage of manufacture, not specially provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; antifriction ball forgings of iron or steel, or of combined iron and steel, forty-five per centum ad valorem.
135. Steel ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, and slabs, by whatever process made; die blocks or blanks; billets and bars and tapered or beveled bars; mill shafting; pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes; saw plates, wholly or partially manufactured; hammer molds or swaged steel; gun barrel molds not in bars; alloys used as substitutes for steel in the manufacture of tools; all descriptions and shapes of dry sand, loam, or iron-molded steel castings; sheets and plates and steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for in this act. * * * (Here follow specific rates of duty.)

The Board of General Appraisers held the drawplates to be dutiable as "plates,” basing their decision upon the testimony in the record introduced to prove that they are. commercially known as plates.. The wortles were held by the board to be dutiable as forgings.

The Government appeals as to the drawplates, and the importer as to the wortles.

The Government here maintains that both are dutiable as "articles of steel partly or wholly manufactured” at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 193.

The importer contends, first, that they are dutiable as "plates” by reason of commercial designation, or as "steel in all forms or shapes not specially provided for” under paragraph 135, or as "forgings” under paragraph 127.

The issues here presented have been the subject of previous decisions by the Board of General Appraisers and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The previous case covered precisely similar merchandise imported by the same importers.' In the first case, as in this, the collector assessed the merchandise for duty as "articles of steel” under paragraph 193. On the appeal to 'the courts from the board the importer waived the contention that the merchandise was "steel in all forms and shapes” and'asserted the single claim that they were plates. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the waiver by the importer deprived his claim of all merit, and held that neither of the articles was within the general scope of the word plate as used in paragraph 135.

The issue again being presented to the Board of General Appraisers, testimony was introduced by the importer with a view to showing that the drawplates were within the commercial signification of plates as used in paragraph 135 and so understood in trade and commerce. There was no testimony even tending to show the trade understanding of wortles. The board held, as above stated, and hence the cross appeals.

[6]*6Whether or not the court of appeals in the case previously presented to that court passed upon the question of the applicability of trade testimony as affecting the term plates as used in paragraph 135 is a mooted question. The expressions of the court would seem to indicate that it considered the term to have been used in its ordinary signification. Regardless of that issue, however, this court is of the opinion that the testimony introduced by the importer does not show that the imported merchandise, or any part thereof, is comprehended by the term plates as used in paragraph 135.

The testimony shows that the wholesale trade generally, wherein the merchandise is bought and sold, refers to-the particular merchandise as “drawplates,” “wire plates,” “drawing plates,” and “wire drawing plates.” It appears that in specific instances, when addressing the particular trade, ‘ ‘plates ” has been used, but that the general and uniform custom of the trade is to indulge in one of the names stated. Counsel for the importer lays much stress upon the signification of the word drawplate, and quotes the definitions of the various lexicographic authorities in his support. They are as follows:

Webster’s International Dictionary:

Drawplate. — A hardened steel piale having a-tole, or a gradation of conical holes, through which wires are drawn to be reduced or elongated.

Century Dictionary:

Drawplate — A. drilled plate of steel or a drilled ruby through which a wire, or a metal ribbon or tube, is drawn to reduce its caliber and equalise it, or to give it a particular shape.

Standard Dictionary:

Drawplate. — A hard plate with holes of successively diminishing diameters for drawing out metal rods or wire.

A lexicographic definition of plate given by Lockwood’s Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering Terms, which is essentially that given by others, is as follows:

Plate. — A broad, thin sheet of metal.

That definition is in accordance.with the common understanding of the term. The definitions of drawplate, quoted by counsel, when read in connection with the definition of plate as quoted, emphasizes perfectly the fact, which is corroborated by every witness who testified, to wit, that drawplate is something more than plate.

Webster defines drawplate as “A hardened steel plate having a hole, or a gradation of conical holes, * * *.” That is to say that it is a plate to which' something has been done or added to bring it within the category known as drawplate.

The Century Dictionary states it to be “A drilled plate of steel * * That is to say that it was originally a plate of steel which has been drilled in such a manner as to at least partially fit it for its subsequent use.

[7]

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

Related

W. R. Filbin & Co. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 200 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Herron Zimmers Moulding Co. v. United States
2 Cust. Ct. 355 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)
Neuman & Schwiers Co. v. United States
24 C.C.P.A. 127 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1936)
United States v. Frank
15 Ct. Cust. 97 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
United States v. Veith
5 Ct. Cust. 304 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1914)
Universal Shipping Co. v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 245 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Ct. Cust. 4, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-andrew-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1911.