R. J. Saunders & Co. v. United States

56 Cust. Ct. 85, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2047
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedFebruary 7, 1966
DocketC.D. 2615
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 Cust. Ct. 85 (R. J. Saunders & 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
R. J. Saunders & Co. v. United States, 56 Cust. Ct. 85, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2047 (cusc 1966).

Opinion

OliveR, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this protest was described on the invoices as “cellulose sponge cloth on rolls,” imported in lengths of 100 meters or approximately 110 yards and in roll sizes A, B, and C. Size A has a width of 8 inches and comes in thicknesses ranging from %6 to %2 of an inch. Size B is 1014 inches wide and %2 of an inch thick. Size C is 82 inches wide and measures 14 inch in thickness. The merchandise was classified under paragraph 31 (b) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108, as compounds of cellulose, made into finished or partly finished sponges, and assessed with duty at the rate of 38 per centum ad valorem.

It is the importer’s claim that the merchandise is properly classifiable as compounds of cellulose in sheet form, not made into finished or partly finished articles, under paragraph 31(b) (1) of said act, as modified by T.D. 52739, supplemented by T.D. 52763, and dutiable at the rate of 20 cents per pound.

The relevant portions of the tariff act, as modified, are as follows: Paragraph 31(b)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D.54108:

All compounds of cellulose (except cellulose acetate, but including pyroxylin and other cellulose esters and ethers), and all compounds, combinations, or mixtures of which any such compound is the component material of chief value:

Made into finished or partly finished articles of which any of the materials provided for in paragraph 31(b) (1), Tariff Act of 1930, is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for (except articles made in chief value from transparent sheets, bands, or strips not more than 0.003 inch thick, and except smokeless powder) :

Sponges-38% ad val.

[87]*87Paragraph 31(b) (1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 52739, as supplemented by T.D. 52763:

All compounds of cellulose (except cellulose acetate, but including pyroxylin and other cellulose esters and ethers), and all compounds, combinations, or mixtures of which any such compound is the component material of chief value:

In blocks, sheets, rods, tubes, powder, flakes, briquets, or other forms, whether or not col-loided, not made into finished or partly finished articles:

Other_ 20$ per lb.

Upon the trial, plaintiff introduced into evidence 10 illustrative exhibits, consisting in the main of samples of the merchandise, both as imported and as sold to ultimate consumers, as well as various photographs illustrating the manner in which the merchandise is imported. (The only variation is in the color of the merchandise and this is deemed immaterial.) Plaintiff also called two witnesses.

Mr. Gosta Sandemar, plaintiff’s first witness, testified that he was the president of the corporation “Products from Sweden,” the company for whose account the merchandise was imported. He stated that he was personally familiar with the invoiced merchandise. He identified plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 1 as a photograph showing the form in which the merchandise is imported. He further identified plaintiff’s illustrative exhibits 3, 4, and 5 as pieces of the imported sponge cloth cut from roll sizes A, B, and C, respectively.

He stated that the cut pieces show the exact width and thickness of the merchandise as imported. However, none of the three roll sizes, each imported in 110-yard lengths, bear any marks to indicate where they are to be cut for the subsequent uses to which they are put. His company does no processing at all, but sells the merchandise as imported to but one customer, the American Sponge and Chamois Co. The merchandise is sold to this customer as cellulose sponge cloth in rolls.

Plaintiff’s second witness was Mr. Charles Lipsig, a vice president of the American Sponge and Chamois Co. in charge of their cellulose division, which handles both block sponges and sponge cloth. Mr. Lipsig testified that his company is the sole purchaser of the involved merchandise, purchasing it under the name of cellulose sponge cloth. His company .has handled this product since 1953. He identified the photographs and the samples previously introduced into evidence as the merchandise in the condition in which they buy it from the importer. He agreed to the dimensions as stated by Mr. Sandemar [88]*88and repeated that the rolls of sponge cloth have no prefixed markings for cutting purposes.

With respect to roll sizes A and B, the witness related the following steps of processing by his company after importation but prior to resale: Rolls A and B are cut to approximately six different sizes; they are put through a chemical bath containing four different chemicals ; two of the chemicals act as a plasticizer to keep the sponge cloth soft, a third chemical acts to maintain the pH of the material, that is, the proper acidity; a fourth chemical acts as a mold inhibitor; they are packaged in various sized plastic envelopes to keep them damp.

After packaging, they are sold to various types of wholesalers and sometimes direct to business consumers as “AMSCO Sponge Cloth.” The sponge cloths are mainly used for household wiping chores, ranging generally from washing dishes, windows, woodwork, and tile to polishing and wiping the family automobile. One size is specified for use as a baby’s washcloth and another has been used in washing the udders of a cow. Plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 6 was identified as a 7- by 8-inch dishcloth, cut from roll size A. In this regard, the witness stated that the waffle-side, to which the printed material in the package refers, is the same as the waffle structure on the imported roll. Each roll of material contains this waffle-like design in its imported condition. The witness also identified plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 7 as their “Automagic Sponge Cloth,” cut from roll size B and used in drying an automobile. Plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 8 is the same as illustrative exhibit 7, except that the cellophane bag has been opened for closer examination of the merchandise.

Finally, Mr. Lipsig testified that roll size C, plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 5, is sold just as imported, i.e., in 110-yard lengths, to one particular purchaser, a manufacturer of transistors. This purchaser cuts it down to various sizes and uses it for wiping its factory equipment.

On cross-examination, Mr. Lipsig testified further that the roll C size sponge cloth is sold to the transistor manufacturer in the same condition it is in when imported, i.e., uncut and untreated with the above-mentioned chemical baths.

On redirect, the plaintiff introduced illustrative exhibits 9 and 10, the former showing the imported rolls wrapped in polyethylene for protection during transit into the country and the latter, indicating the drum containers in which they are packed.

On recross, the witness explained that the merchandise when wet will expand between 15 and 20 percent in width and 100 percent in thickness, but when dry again it will return to its imported condition. Finally, Mr. Lipsig stated that this merchandise had been used in [89]*89experimentation with astronauts in the space program. They used it inside a space suit connected with hoses for washing purposes. The sponge cloth absorbed the excess moisture inside the suit.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the involved merchandise is a mere material in 110-yard lengths requiring further processing and, in its imported condition, not yet advanced into finished or partly finished articles.

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

Related

F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 421 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Cust. Ct. 85, 1966 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-j-saunders-co-v-united-states-cusc-1966.