Sullivan v. United States

46 Cust. Ct. 31
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJanuary 11, 1961
DocketC.D. 2229
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 46 Cust. Ct. 31 (Sullivan 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
Sullivan v. United States, 46 Cust. Ct. 31 (cusc 1961).

Opinion

Laweence, Judge:

An importation of three Berthelsen presses and parts thereof from Denmark was classified by the collector of customs as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, and parts thereof, within the purview of paragraph 353 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 353), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, and assessed with duty at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem.

It is the claim of plaintiff herein that the importations should properly have been classified as machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, and parts thereof, pursuant to paragraph 372 [32]*32of said act (19 U.S.C. § 1001, par. 372), as modified by tlie Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, for which duty at the rate of 13 per centum ad valorem is provided.

For ready reference, the competing provisions of the statutes are ' here set forth—

Paragraph 353, as modified, supra:

Articles haying as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as electric motors, fans, locomotives, portable tools, furnaces, heaters, ovens, ranges, washing machines, refrigerators, and signs, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, and not specially provided for:
Batteries_ * * *
**«#*$$
Other * * *_ 13%% ad val.
Parts, finished or unfinished, wholly or in chief value of metal, The same rate not specially provided for, of articles provided for in any item of duty as - 353 of this Part (not including X-ray trubes or parts thereof). the articles of which they are parts.

Paragraph 372, as modified, supra:

Machines, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for:
Adding machines_ * * *
* * & sfc . * *
Other * * *--- 13% ad val.
Parts, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of The rate for the metal or porcelain, of any article provided for in any item article of 372 in this Part. which they are parts.

In addition to the testimony of three witnesses offered on behalf of plaintiff, there were received in evidence the following exhibits—

Plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 1 — a photograph stated to be a substantial representation of the machines'in issue.

Plaintiff’s illustrative exhibit 2 — a copy of a United States Patent Office letters patent number 2,627,289, which describes, generally, the construction and operation of a Berthelsen hydraulic press.

Plaintiff’s exhibit 4 is limited to the illustration appearing on a page from the October 1947 issue of a periodical entitled “Wood Products.”

Defendant’s exhibit A — an advertising pamphlet of V. Berthelsen Engineering Works, Inc., of Joliet, Ill., with particular reference to paragraphs 3 and 5 appearing on page 2 thereof.

The first of plaintiff’s three witnesses was Kaj I. Winther, president and founder of the Berthelsen Engineering Works, Inc., which company imports hydraulic presses, manufactures such presses, and also sells them. He stated that he had been with the Berthelsen company since 1948 and had been in the hydraulic press field since 1925. The nature of his work has been in all phases of the business, including [33]*33operating, engineering, selling, financing, and importing. He described a hydraulic press, generally, as a press consisting of three or four platens which are pressed together by means of a fluid which is being pushed into cylinders through a pump. He explained that the word “platen” refers to the plate that is used in a hydraulic press and that the word “hydraulic” means that the press is being operated by a liquid which is pumped into a vessel.

Winther testified that he had seen the three machines in issue in operation at his company’s plant where they were tested prior to delivery and that he had seen similar machines in operation in various customers’ plants. He stated that hydraulic presses are used for laminating wood, paper, metal, plastic, or almost any kind of raw or manufactured material known to the engineering industry. The presses are used for the purpose of producing pressure while the platens are being heated in order to set or cure the particular adhesive that is being used. Using plywood as an example, the witness explained that after a veneer has been rolled off a log, three pieces or even up to seven pieces of veneer, varying from a 32d of an inch up to one-eighth of an inch, are placed together and, by the application of pressure of from 140 to 250 pounds per square inch while the platens are under heat, the veneer is laminated into what is known as plywood board in the building industry. The pressure is obtained by forcing liquid into cylinders by a pump. The motivating power to drive the pump may be anything from hand-power to what is most commonly used today, a belt drive. With specific reference to the pumps used in the Berthelsen hydraulic presses, the witness stated that they are belt operated and that the motivating power can be electricity, gasoline, diesel, or any other power source. He testified that there is nothing in the hydraulic presses before the court which is an electrical feature or an electrical element.

As to the operation of the Berthelsen hydraulic presses, Winther stated that usually an electric motor is utilized because it is a modem means of power. The electrical motor furnishes the power to the pump through a belt. The pump, in turn, pumps the oil into cylinders and the cylinders will then force the pistons up causing the platens or tables to move together and furnish the necessary pressure. After remaining in a compressed state for a certain length of time, an operator can throw a 'handle that opens up a dump valve, causing the machine to open. This latter operation can be done electrically if the customer so desires. While the platens are pressing together the pieces of material to be laminated, the platens must be heated. The heat is usually supplied to these platens by steam pipes from an existing boiler in the customer’s plant. The boiler can be fired by coal, oil, or electricity.

[34]*34Winther’s attention was directed to defendant’s exhibit A on page 1 of which part of the press therein depicted was encircled in red ink and marked “Kontrol panel.” He testified that, whereas a control panel is used for the operation of the Berthelsen hydraulic presses, it is not essential. When asked to explain what the control panel contains and its method of operation, the witness stated that it consists of a pump and a series of valves, a manometer to give the pressure, an emergency check valve, in the event it should be necessary to lower the press immediately before reaching its full pressure, and a clock to show the time. The source of power which operates the control panel is hydraulic not electric. The control panel would work if it were not electrically wired. In such a case, a man would stand at the press, watch the clock, and pull a handle when the press should be released.

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

Related

Castelazo & Associates Atwood Imports, Inc. v. United States
64 Cust. Ct. 508 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Castelazo v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 588 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
John H. Faunce Phila., Inc. v. United States
60 Cust. Ct. 369 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 298 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
Rembar Co. v. United States
57 Cust. Ct. 239 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
Arnhold Ceramics, Inc. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 416 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 46 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
Berkley Machine Co. v. United States
55 Cust. Ct. 444 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Karl Schroff & Associates v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 395 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Sullivan v. United States
50 Cust. Ct. 217 (U.S. Customs Court, 1963)
Frank P. Dow Co. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 191 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Keer, Maurer Co. v. United States
48 Cust. Ct. 205 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
M. E. Dey & Co. v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 280 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Cust. Ct. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-united-states-cusc-1961.