S. G. B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United States

Customs and Patent Appeals

S. G. B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United States

496 F.2d 1224, 61 C.C.P.A. 73, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 156

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1974

DocketNo. 5542; C.A.D. 1123

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 1224 (S. G. B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring 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

S. G. B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United States, 496 F.2d 1224, 61 C.C.P.A. 73, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 156 (ccpa 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Lane, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision and judgment of tbe United States Customs Court reported at 70 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 4423, 361 F. Supp. 631 (1973), dismissing the civil action brought to challenge the Begional Commissioner’s classification of certain imported shore frames within item 657.20 TSUS as other articles of iron or steel. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the imported shore frames are merely an improved version of a single-pole vertical shore and should be classified within item 664.10 TSUS relating to elevators, hoists, winches, cranes, jacks, etc. The trial court which heard the witnesses and examined the exhibits found that the shore frame system consisted of a number of components fitted and used together to shore formwork into which reinforced concrete is poured, as a temporary support until the load can sustain itself. The shore frame system is composed of two parallel poles connected by horizontal bars. Other components, illustrated in plaintiff’s exhibit #2, include the base plate assembly, the adjustment screw assembly or bottom jack, the staff connector or upper jack, the shore staff assembly, the shore heads, and the cross braces.

After consideration of appellant’s arguments, we have concluded that we are in full agreement with the opinion of the trial judge and we adopt it as our own. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Lane, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision and judgment of tbe United States Customs Court reported at 70 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 4423, 361 F. Supp. 631 (1973), dismissing the civil action brought to challenge the Begional Commissioner’s classification of certain imported shore frames within item 657.20 TSUS as other articles of iron or steel. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the imported shore frames are merely an improved version of a single-pole vertical shore and should be classified within item 664.10 TSUS relating to elevators, hoists, winches, cranes, jacks, etc. The trial court which heard the witnesses and examined the exhibits found that the shore frame system consisted of a number of components fitted and used together to shore formwork into which reinforced concrete is poured, as a temporary support until the load can sustain itself. The shore frame system is composed of two parallel poles connected by horizontal bars. Other components, illustrated in plaintiff’s exhibit #2, include the base plate assembly, the adjustment screw assembly or bottom jack, the staff connector or upper jack, the shore staff assembly, the shore heads, and the cross braces.

After consideration of appellant’s arguments, we have concluded that we are in full agreement with the opinion of the trial judge and we adopt it as our own. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 1224, 61 C.C.P.A. 73, 1974 CCPA LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-g-b-steel-scaffolding-shoring-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack