Southwestern Shipbuilding Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 74, 1925 WL 29525, 1925 CCPA LEXIS 64
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 11, 1925
DocketNo. 2379
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 Ct. Cust. 74 (Southwestern Shipbuilding 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
Southwestern Shipbuilding Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. 74, 1925 WL 29525, 1925 CCPA LEXIS 64 (ccpa 1925).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

A great number of articles of different kinds, imported at the port of Los Angeles, were assessed for duty under various provisions of the tariff act of 1913. The importer protested that the goods were free of duty under paragraph J, subsection 5, of Section IV of the tariff act of 1913, which reads as follows:

Par. J, subsec. 6. That all materials of foreign production which may be necessary for the construction of naval vessels or other vessels of the United States, vessels built in the United States for foreign account and ownership, or for the purpose of being employed in the foreign or domestic trade, and all such materials necessary for the building of their machinery, and all articles necessary for their outfit and equipment, may be imported in bond under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and upon proof that such materials have been used for such purposes no duties shall be paid thereon.

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed.

It is not disputed that the articles in issue were imported for installation on three vessels which were under construction in this country and designed for use as tankers.

The importer admits that, if the goods are not entitled to free entry, they were properly classified and subject to the duty assessed by the collector.

[76]*76If tbe articles be “outfit and equipment” it is not contended by the Government that they were excessive in quantity or more than was required to outfit and equip the vessels.

Paragraph J, subsection 5, of Section IV, contemplates the construction of the vessel as one thing, the building of its machinery as another, and its outfit and equipment as something else. Necessarily, therefore, the materials which go into the construction of the vessel, the materials which are necessary for the building of its machinery, and the articles necessary for its outfit and equipment must bo regarded as separate and distinct tariff entities. Toledo Ship Building Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 342, at pp. 343, 344, T. D. 37609.

We are not concerned in this case with the materials for constructing a vessel or for building its machinery. We are called upon to determine only what constitutes its outfit and equipment within the meaning of the paragraph to which we have just referred and to decide whether the articles involved in the protest or any of them are covered by that designation.

Prior to 1872 articles of equipment for vessels in course of construction and materials for making ship’s equipment, were not, as such, exempt from duty and were subject to duty unless exempt under some other designation. Section 10 of the act of 1872, section 2510 of the act of 1883 and section 8 of the act of 1890, admitted free of duty certain eo nomine designated materials for the construction and equipment of vessels built in the United States for the foreign trade.

After the passage of section 8 of the act of October 1, 1890, the Treasury Department requested the Naval Board of Construction, of which George Dewey, Chief of the Bureau of Equipment, was president, to define the word equipment. Responding to that request the Naval Board of Construction reported as follows:

■ Equipment, used in a general sense, may be defined as any portable thing that is used for, or provided in, preparing a vessel, whose hull is already finished for service. It is the furniture of whatsoever nature which is put into a finished ship in equipping her. The Queen’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions give the following definition: “Equipment, in relation to a ship, includes the furnishing a ship with any tackle, apparel, furniture, provisions, arms, munitions or stores, or any other tiling that is used in or about a ship for the purpose of fitting or adapting her for the sea or for naval service.”
In estimating the displacement of a ship, naval constructors use the term “hull and fittings” in contradistinction to “equipment,” the fittings of the hull being understood to be any permanent thing attached to the hull which would remain on board were the vessel to be laid up for a long period.
Adopting these definitions, the board is of the opinion that the term equipment would not include donkey engines, pumps, windlasses, steam stoerers, and other machinery, but that it would include anchors, chain cables, boats, life-saving apparatus, nautical instruments, signal lights, and similar articles. (27 Atty. Gen. Opinions,228, 238.)

[77]*77Section 7 of the act of 1894, section 12 of the act of 1897, and section 19 of the act of 1909, extended the benefit of the free list not onlj7' to all articles necessary for the equipment of vessels, but to all articles necessary for their outfit. The Treasury Department, in its regulations of 1908, defined equipment as follows:

The equipment of a vessel is that which prepares her for a voyage, as rigging, sails, anchors, cables, chains, etc. The provision regarding “equipment” does not cover articles used as “supplies.” (Customs Regulations, 1908, articles 726, 750.)

The department did not define or attempt to define outfit.

Section 5 of the Panama Canal act, which was passed on August 24, 1912, provided:

That all materials of foreign production which may be necessary for the construction or repair of vessels built in the United States and all such materials necessary for the building or repair of their machinery and all articles necessary for their outfit and equipment may be imported into the United States free of duty under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.

The term “outfit and equipment” as used in section 5, was defined by the Treasury Department in November, 1912, as follows:

The term “outfit and equipment”-is defined as including portable articles necessary or appropriate for the navigation, operation, or maintenance of a vessel, and not permanently incorporated in its hull or machinery, and not constituting consumable supplies. The term includes, therefore, anchors, chains, cables, tackle, boats, repair parts, life-saving apparatus, wireless-telegraph apparatus (except the motor generator), nautical instruments, searchlights, signal lights, lamps, furniture, carpets, table linen, tableware, bedding, arms and munitions, and also articles to be used in renewal or replacement of articles of original outfit and equipment. T. D. 32956.

In May, 1913, the Treasury Department, in a resumé of its published and unpublished decisions under said section 5, announced that towels and sheets, electric-light bulbs and fixtures, bathtubs, flexible metal hose, table linen, bed linen, even if marked with a monogram, constituted articles of “outfit and equipment.” T. D. 33386.

After the passage of paragraph J, subsection 5 of Section IV of the act of 1913, the Treasury Department again defined outfit and equipment as follows:

The term “outfit and equipment” is defined as including portable articles necessary or appropriate for the navigation, operation, or maintenance of a vessel, but not permanently incorporated in or permanently attached to its hull or propelling machinery, and not constituting consumable supplies.

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

Related

States Marine Corp. v. United States
42 Cust. Ct. 15 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Gibbs v. United States
41 C.C.P.A. 57 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1953)
Gibbs v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 318 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)
Atlas Marine Supply Co. v. United States
29 C.C.P.A. 20 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1941)
Warner v. United States
28 C.C.P.A. 143 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1940)
Protest 815545-G of Pacific & Atlantic Steamship Co.
2 Cust. Ct. 761 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Ct. Cust. 74, 1925 WL 29525, 1925 CCPA LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-shipbuilding-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1925.