Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States

63 Cust. Ct. 96, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3792
United States Customs Court·Decided September 11, 1969·No. C.D. 3881·Published·Cited by 25 cases

Opinion

Rao, Chief Judge:

The two protests here involved which were consolidated for trial relate to certain electrical equipment imported from West Germany. In issue are three different types of articles, all assessed with duty at the rate of 17.5 per centum ad valorem, as electrical switches within the purview of item 685.90 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (hereinafter referred to as TSUS).

It is claimed in the protests, or by amendment thereto, that the articles designated as flasher units and back-up light assembly kits are more specifically provided for in item 683.65 of said TSUS, as parts of electrical lighting equipment for motor vehicles, at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem, and that the article invoiced as starter solenoid switch is also dutiable at the rate of 8.5 per centum ad valorem, as electrical starting and ignition equipment for internal combustion engines, as provided in item 683.60 of said TSUS.

An alternative contention that the flasher unit is provided for in item 685.70 as visual signalling apparatus, at the rate of 8.5 per centum .ad valorem has not been pressed, and is, therefore, deemed abandoned.

The relevant statutory language reads as follows:

685.90 Electrical switches, relays, fuses, lighting arresters, plugs, receptacles, lamp sockets, terminals, terminal strips, junction boxes and other electrical apparatus for making or breaking electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; switchboards (except telephone switchboards) and control panels; all the foregoing and parts thereof_ 17.5 % ad val.
[98]*98683.60 Ignition magnetos, magneto-generators, ignition coils, starter motors, spark plugs, glow plugs, and other electrical starting and ignition equipment for internal combustion engines; generators and cut-outs for use m conjunction therewith; all the foregoing and parts thereof_ 8.5% ad val.
683.65 TSUS, as amended by Public Law 89-241.
Electric lighting equipment designed for motor vehicles, and parts thereof_ 8.5% ad val.

Samples illustrative of the imported articles, together with certain descriptive material indicating the placement and functions of these units were introduced into evidence and it appears not to be disputed that they are automotive equipment parts for Volkswagens.

The sole witness in the case was Mr. Wilmer McFadgen, service manager of Robert Bosch Corp., one of the plaintiffs herein, who had worked for the company for 11 years, and had 14 years previous experience in the same field. His testimony may foe summarized as follows:

Robert Bosch Corp. is an importer of automotive, electrical and radio equipment from its “home plant” in Stuttgart, Germany. This equipment is marketed in the United States through distributors. The service manager supervises personnel who install and repair these items and also conducts a school for distributors wherein he teaches subjects covering automotive, electrical and diesel fuel injection equipment including courses on starters, generators and alternators, and tape recorders. The witness had personally repaired the ignition and electrical systems of Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo and Issetta automobiles, and was, at the time of trial, engaged in rebuilding a Volkswagen engine for himself.

Bosch in Germany is an original equipment manufacturer for certain makes of automobiles and provides inter alia starters, generators, coils, spark plugs, distributors, ignition switches and windshield wipers for Volkswagens.

The subject flasher unit identified as item number 0336150009 on entry 45117 and number 336251003 on entry 30930 is purportedly represented in the record by plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibits 1 and 2. It appears, however, that although exhibit 2 was identified as item No. 336251003, it is in fact item No. 336150010. We advert to this discrepancy since counsel for the government has urged a failure of proof with respect to item No. 336251003. But inasmuch as testimony of the witness establishes that 009, 003, and 010 (plaintiffs’ illustrative [99] exhibit 3) differ only in terminal features, but are identical in internal construction and operation, we are not inclined to consider the discrepancy as significant.

These articles are primarily Volkswagen flasher units which cause the directional lights to blink. With the aid of plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibit 3 which has been opened to reveal its interior construction and plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibit 4, a block diagram of the unit, the witness described the mechanisms and function of the system as follows: a directional turn indicator switch is mounted on the steering post by the manufacturer. It has a control light which indicates whether the signal is left or right. The switch in issue controls the front and rear lights and the blinker unit. When the turn indicator switch is pulled down for a left turn, for example, it energizes a coil or magnetic switch, and electricity flows through the blinker unit. A little pair of contacts in the blinker unit closes the circuit and applies current to the front and rear lights. When the current flow heats a bimetal piece of wire, the wire relaxes and because the magnetic field can no longer overcome it, the contact snaps open, then it cools and contact is reestablished. The cycle repeats itself, depending upon its load capacity, from 45 to 60 times a minute. As a result the lights blink on and off indicating the direction in which the car is turning. The sole function of the blinker light is to signal the intent to turn, and the unit in issue is strictly an automotive piece.

On cross-examination the witness admitted that he would call exhibits 1 and 2 magnetic switches and that they are devices used to make or break electrical circuits for the purpose of signalling. He further characterized this item as electrical apparatus which connects the current to the lights.

Item No. 0331400019 of protest 67/67367 is described in the record as a starter solenoid switch. It is represented by plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibit 5 and depicted by photograph and diagram in plaintiffs’ illustrative exhibits 6 and 7. According to the witness the starter solenoid switch by means of two internal windings activates the starter motor which in turn starts the engine. When the ignition key is turned the pull-in winding simultaneously sucks in the steel core of the solenoid and shifts the starter into gear with the flywheel teeth. When the core touches the two contacts at the back end of the solenoid, electrical power from the battery goes across the contacts in the solenoid into the starter motor which then turns over. When the key is released, the core falls back automatically and the engine should be operating. The engine could not be started unless the mechanical function of engaging the teeth in the flywheel is performed. The solenoid switch is always mounted on the starter, and it, or a substitute device, is essential to its operation. Both the solenoid and the starter are designed to be used together in a single housing.

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

Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States, 63 Cust. Ct. 96, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3792 (cusc 1969).

63 Cust. Ct. 96 (Robert Bosch Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagner Spray Tech Corp., Inc. v. United States
493 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (Court of International Trade, 2007)
Nadel Industries, Inc. v. United States
19 Ct. Int'l Trade 573 (Court of International Trade, 1995)
Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. v. United States
19 Ct. Int'l Trade 378 (Court of International Trade, 1995)
Casio, Inc. v. United States
18 Ct. Int'l Trade 952 (Court of International Trade, 1994)
Nestle Refrigerated Food Co. v. United States
18 Ct. Int'l Trade 661 (Court of International Trade, 1994)
Rollix Bearing, Inc. v. United States
15 Ct. Int'l Trade 11 (Court of International Trade, 1991)
Supermarket Systems, U.S., Inc. v. United States
13 Ct. Int'l Trade 907 (Court of International Trade, 1989)
West Bend Co. v. United States
12 Ct. Int'l Trade 1016 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
Hampco Apparel, Inc. v. United States
12 Ct. Int'l Trade 92 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
A & A International, Inc. v. United States
11 Ct. Int'l Trade 775 (Court of International Trade, 1987)
Eastalco Aluminum Co. v. United States
10 Ct. Int'l Trade 622 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries, Inc. v. United States
10 Ct. Int'l Trade 203 (Court of International Trade, 1986)
FAG Bearings, Ltd. v. United States
9 Ct. Int'l Trade 227 (Court of International Trade, 1985)
Dan-Dee Imports, Inc. v. United States
7 Ct. Int'l Trade 241 (Court of International Trade, 1984)
Tridon, Inc. v. United States
5 Ct. Int'l Trade 167 (Court of International Trade, 1983)
A. J. Arango, Inc. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 271 (Court of International Trade, 1981)
Harper-Wyman Co. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 108 (Court of International Trade, 1981)
Ozen Sound Devices v. United States
620 F.2d 880 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1980)
Nevco Furniture Corp. v. United States
76 Cust. Ct. 75 (U.S. Customs Court, 1976)
Oxford International Corp. v. United States
70 Cust. Ct. 217 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)