Stryer v. United States

62 Cust. Ct. 598, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3460
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMay 26, 1969
DocketC.D. 3831
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 Cust. Ct. 598 (Stryer 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
Stryer v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 598, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3460 (cusc 1969).

Opinion

Rao, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case, imported from Italy and entered at the port of New York, is described on the invoice as “Weaver’s Tools”. It was assessed with duty at 22.5 per centum ad valorem and 10 cents each under item 650.91 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, under the provision for scissors and shears valued over $1.75 per dozen. It is claimed that the articles are properly dutiable under item 657.20 at 19 per centum ad valorem, as articles of iron or steel not coated or plated with precious metal. The pertinent provisions of the tariff schedules are as follows:

Scissors and shears (except machines and except shears provided for in any of the foregoing provisions), * * *:
# £ ífi í}{ í{í
650.91 Valued over $1.75 per dozen- 100 each and
22.5% ad val.
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:
Other articles:
❖ ******
657.20 Other -19% ad val.

Two samples of the merchandise were received in evidence. (Exhibits 1 and 6.) One was sent to the customs laboratory for analysis and was reported to be composed of nickel plated iron or steel. (Exhibit 5.) Each sample is composed of two metal strips about 4% inches long, each consisting of a blade and a shank or handle. The strips are joined at the shank end by a screw and nut. One of the pieces has a finger ring as a part of the shank or handle. The article has a self-opening blade spring and a stop pin which keeps the points in alignment.

[600]*600Three witnesses were called at the trial. The plaintiff, ISTorbert Stryer, who has been in the business of importing and selling cutlery all over the United States for 20 years, testified on his own behalf. Bruce Briggs, product manager, and Walter Selle, regional sales manager of J. Wiss & Sons Co., manufacturers of shears, scissors, garden tools and snips, which are sold throughout the world, testified for the defendant.

According to these witnesses and the illustrations on exhibits 1 and A, the imported article, or its domestic counterpart, is used by inserting the third or fourth finger of the hand in the ring and pressing the blades with the thumb and forefinger. The ring is a feature which enables a worker on the production line to retain the tool in the hand. The spring causes the blades to reopen, thus reducing hand and finger fatigue. The article is used to cut or clip thread, fibers and filaments. In the garment industry, it is also used to cut darts and binding tape, and to separate various parts of patterns. In the shoe industry, it is used to clean threads off and to cut canvas. It is employed in the electronic industry for cutting light filament and jackets of wire. In the plastics industry it is used to trim off excess material, as the material comes out of the mold.

Mr. Stryer testified that he sold the imported merchandise as thread clips or nippers. He said they were cutting instruments but not scissors. A comparable article, designated the “Wiss-clip” by its manufacturer, J. Wiss & Sons Co. (exhibit A), is called a thread clip in its literature (exhibits 2 and B). Mr. Briggs called it a thread clip scissor and stated that it was regarded in the trade as a type of scissors. He testified that the designation “Wiss-clip” was given to indicate quickness 'and ease of use and was a shortened version of the term “thread clip scissor” as known in the trade. He said such articles had been manufactured both in the United States and abroad for a great many years, but that it was a relatively new product with his firm, which had made improvements and packaged it for the retail trade. Mr. Selk testified that the article is bought and sold as a thread clip. He said such articles are stocked with scissors and shears, and are sold along with them for the very same function. He stated they are simply another of the many types of scissors and shears that are available.

Mr. Stryer testified that scissors have as characteristic features two blades, shanks, a screw that fastens the two blades together, handles, and two rings for the insertion of fingers. When open, the blades form an “X”. The article is manipulated by putting the fingers into the rings and closing the blades on the object to be cut. While the thread clip has two blades, it has only one ring and the function of the ring is quite different, being used as a finger rest. It has a spring which is [601]*601essential to its function and without which, it would be a “dead” instrument.

Mr. Briggs testified that he was familiar with various types of scissors, including sewing, embroidery, ‘buttonhole, pocket, tailors’ points, 'and thread clips. All of them have handles, the handle being the part of the tool that is ¡held when it is being used. He said that a handle and shank are basically the same because the shank is used in conjunction with or as a handle. In the trade, a scissor is understood to be a light duty instrument, as compared to a shear, and is usually less than 6 inches in length.

Mr. Briggs pointed out that the scissors or shears in evidence as exhibits 3 and 4 each have two blades which when open form a “V”, and that the blades of the thread clip (exhibit 6) also form a “V”. He said the blades of all three exhibits are pivoted and face each other. Exhibits 3 and 4 do not have return springs but exhibit 6 does. According to the witness, the spring is necessary to the thread clip to make it functional for the purpose for which it was intended.

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

Related

Dolliff & Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 681 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Mattel, Inc. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 616 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cust. Ct. 598, 1969 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stryer-v-united-states-cusc-1969.