United States v. Abbey Rents

585 F.2d 501, 66 C.C.P.A. 2, 1978 CCPA LEXIS 240
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 1978
DocketNo. 78-4
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 585 F.2d 501 (United States v. Abbey Rents) 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
United States v. Abbey Rents, 585 F.2d 501, 66 C.C.P.A. 2, 1978 CCPA LEXIS 240 (ccpa 1978).

Opinion

Baldwin, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the U.S. Customs Court, 79 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 4720, 442 F. Supp. 540 (1977), holding motorized wheelchairs to be properly classifiable under item 692.10 TSUS 1 and not items 727.04 TSUS2 or 727.55 TSUS 3 as claimed by the appellant. We affirm.

[4]*4After a thorough consideration of the record, briefs and oral argument, we find no reversible error in the decision and opinion of Judge Landis and adopt it as our own with the following additional comments.

The appellant’s contention that motorized wheelchairs are encompassed within the definition of furniture set forth in TSIJS Schedule 7, part 4, subpart A, headnote 14 must fail because the testimony in the record establishes that motorized wheelchairs serve as a means of mobility for individuals with upper and lower body disabilities. Mr. Burrer, a Government witness and himself a user of a motorized wheelchair, testified that he uses his motorized wheelchair as a vehicle for getting from one point to another. Further, no evidence presented established use of a motorized wheelchair solely as an article of furniture to the exclusion of its primary, mobility function.

The appellant’s alternative argument that the merchandise should be classified as furniture for hospital or medical use fails for similar reasons. The fact that motorized wheelchairs are commonly marketed by medical and hospital supply firms is not evidence that the wheelchairs are furniture since such enterprises undoubtedly sell innumerable articles that are not furniture. Similarly, it does not follow that motorized wheelchairs must be furniture for medical or hospital use simply because certain agencies administratively require physician approval before an individual can be issued a motorized wheelchair at government expense.5

Finally, the testimony that motorized wheelchairs are frequently transported between locations of use instead of being driven under their own power does not preclude their classification as motor vehicles since other motor vehicles, for example, snowmobiles, dune buggies, golf carts, race cars, et cetera, are likewise transported to the environments for which they are designed.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Western States Import Co., Inc. v. United States
932 F. Supp. 1483 (Court of International Trade, 1996)
E.T. Horn Company v. The United States
945 F.2d 1540 (Federal Circuit, 1991)
E.T. Horn Co. v. United States
14 Ct. Int'l Trade 790 (Court of International Trade, 1990)
Supermarket Systems, U.S., Inc. v. United States
13 Ct. Int'l Trade 907 (Court of International Trade, 1989)
F.W. Myers, Inc. v. United States
12 Ct. Int'l Trade 566 (Court of International Trade, 1988)
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
585 F. Supp. 649 (Court of International Trade, 1984)
United States v. Kyocera International, Inc.
681 F.2d 797 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1982)
Kyocera International, Inc. v. United States
527 F. Supp. 337 (Court of International Trade, 1981)
United States v. Porter
645 F.2d 52 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1981)
Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States
84 Cust. Ct. 76 (U.S. Customs Court, 1980)
Simmon Omega, Inc. v. United States
83 Cust. Ct. 14 (U.S. Customs Court, 1979)
Porter v. United States
82 Cust. Ct. 259 (U.S. Customs Court, 1979)
S.G.B. Steel Scaffolding & Shoring Co. v. United States
82 Cust. Ct. 197 (U.S. Customs Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 F.2d 501, 66 C.C.P.A. 2, 1978 CCPA LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-abbey-rents-ccpa-1978.