Schwarz v. United States

60 Cust. Ct. 522, 284 F. Supp. 792, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2394
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 8, 1968
DocketC.D. 3447
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 60 Cust. Ct. 522 (Schwarz 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
Schwarz v. United States, 60 Cust. Ct. 522, 284 F. Supp. 792, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2394 (cusc 1968).

Opinion

Beckwoktii, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these cases, consolidated at the trial, consists of luggage racks and ski carriers imported from West Germany and entered at the port of Los Angeles-Long Beach in 1965 and 1966. It ivas assessed with duty at 19 per centum ad valorem under item 657.20 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as articles of iron or steel, not coated or plated with precious metal, other. It is claimed that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 8% per centum ad valorem under item 647.01 of the tariff schedules, as amended by the Tariff Schedules Technical Amendments Act of 1965, as fittings and mountings designed for motor vehicles. Other claims have been abandoned and are hereby dismissed.

The pertinent provisions of schedule 6 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as amended, are as follows:

Subpart G headnotes:
1. This subpart covers only articles of metal which are not more specifically provided for elsewhere in the tariff schedules.
‡ ‡ ‡ ❖
Articles of iron or steel, not coated or plated with precious metal:
H: $ $ ‡ ‡ ‡
Other articles:
* ❖ ❖ * * H*
657.20 Other-19% ad val.
Hinges; and fittings and mountings not specially provided for, suitable for furniture, doors, windows, blinds, staircases, luggage, vehicle coach work, caskets, cabinets, and similar uses; all the foregoing, of base metal, whether or not coated or plated with precious metal:
Not coated or plated with precious metal:
Of iron or steel, * * *:
647. 01 Hinges, fittings, and mountings, designed for motor vehicles_8.5% ad val.

[524]*524At the trial, plaintiff called two witnesses and introduced 5 exhibits.

Herbert George Schwarz, an importer of sporting goods and car accessories for 15 years, testified that he sells such merchandise all ■over the United States. He identified the exhibits as follows:

Exhibit 1 is a combination ski and luggage rack used on Porsche model 356 automobiles. Such merchandise is covered by protest 67/19999 and is designated on the invoice as type L 303

Exhibit 2 is a ski carrier designed for all models of Volkswagen automobiles. Such merchandise is covered by protest 67/1787 and is designated on the invoices as W 4 L.

Exhibit 3 is a ski carrier designed for carrying skis on any automobile that has a rain gutter. Such merchandise is covered by protest 67/1787 and is designated on the invoice as SL.

Exhibit 4 is a ski carrier designed for Volkswagen automobiles. It is covered by protest 67/4416 and is designated on the invoice as number 4078.

Exhibit 5 consists of catalogue sheets from a brochure covering automotive products, issued October 1966 by Herbert G. Schwarz Imports, depicting exhibits 1 through 4 as they appear when attached to an automobile.

■ Mr. Schwarz testified that his firm has been importing these items for 10 or 15 years in quantities of 2,400 a year. It sells them to dealers and distributors of motor cars, in all 50 States, especially to Volkswagen Pacific in Los Angeles and a Division of Porsche Pacific in Los Angeles and Culver City. Orders are received by mail or phone and sales are also made by about eight salesmen who travel to various places.

The merchandise is offered to the trade as ski carriers or luggage carriers, and Mr. Schwarz considered them fittings or mountings for automobiles. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 are designed for either the Volkswagen or the Porsche automobile, and exhibit 3 will fit any hardtop automobile with a rain gutter.

Mr. Schwarz testified that he had seen these items installed on motor vehicles and had installed about 50 himself. He said that exhibit 1 is attached to the automobile by means of bolts which go through the holes at the base of the luggage carrier and into four threaded holes which have been provided on the automobile by the manufacturer for the installation of the luggage and ski carrier. Skis are attached by laying them across the rack on the plastic pads provided therefor and tightening the straps. Luggage is supported by a piece that extends above the rack to prevent anything from falling off. Four books are provided to attach straps around the luggage.

Mr. Schwarz stated that a luggage rack is a fitting installed onto an automobile to carry luggage and that a ski rack is a fitting to [525]*525carry skis. They are mounted on the car itself by means of bolts or wing nuts. They can be left on the automobiles all year round at the option of the consumer. He said most people keep them on all year round, particularly the ski and luggage rack, which is used in winter for skis and in summer for luggage, or sleeping bags.

Exhibit 2 is attached by two bolts on the top of the item and one bolt at the bottom. The same bolt holds the bumper to the vehicle. Installation is a very simple operation, taking about 4 or 5 minutes. The witness considered the installation to be permanent.

The trial judge read to the witness from Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary the following definitions:

fitting: a small, often standardized, accessory part.
mounting: a frame or support; an undercarriage or part that fits a device or use, or attaches an accessory.

The witness stated that he agreed with those definitions and that in his opinion the merchandise before the court fell within them; that he considered such merchandise to be fittings and mountings.

Plaintiff’s second witness was George A. Holcomb, purchasing representative for Porsche Car Distributors, the distributor and importer of Porsche automobiles in California, southern Nevada, and Arizona. He had held that position for 6 months and for 14 months prior thereto had been field representative for the same firm. He had been parts manager for Vasek-Polak, the Porsche dealer in Manhattan Beach for 6 years; parts and service manager for El Centro Imports, a Volkswagen dealer for 2 years, and an aircraft mechanic for about 18 years.

Mr. Holcomb had installed or supervised the installation of articles like exhibits 1, 2, and 3 on many occasions. He said that exhibit 1 is attached to the engine compartment door of certain models of Porsche automobiles. He explained that the manufacturer provides brackets in the engine door mounting to accept the bolts that come with the ski and luggage carrier. Exhibit 2 is attached to the Volkswagen grill which allows air to enter the rear compartment to cool the engine. Little nuts are provided on the bottom of the ski carrier to go through the slots in the grill and tighten down the bottom surface of the grill. Another portion of the carrier attaches to the bumper to provide a place for the heel of the skis to rest while they are being supported on the ski carrier. Exhibit 3 is attached by assembling it, putting the feet on the rain gutter of the roof panel and tightening a hook that goes around underneath the rain gutter with a wing nut. While the witness had never installed exhibit 4, he believed it would be attached quite similarly to exhibit 2.

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

Related

Parts Manufacturing Associates, Inc. v. United States
73 Cust. Ct. 42 (U.S. Customs Court, 1974)
Sato Shoji, Inc. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 258 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Astra Trading Corp. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 6 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Rausch v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 367 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
J. C. DeJong & Co. v. United States
63 Cust. Ct. 82 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Rocky Cycle Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 550 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Cust. Ct. 522, 284 F. Supp. 792, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwarz-v-united-states-cusc-1968.