United States v. Armaghanian

27 C.C.P.A. 170, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedNovember 29, 1939
DocketNo. 4234
StatusPublished

This text of 27 C.C.P.A. 170 (United States v. Armaghanian) 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. Armaghanian, 27 C.C.P.A. 170, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 31 (ccpa 1939).

Opinion

Bland, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The United States has appealed here from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, Second Division, which sustained the importer-appellee’s protest which he filed as the basis of an action to recover certain claimed excess duties paid the United States by what the appellee regards as an erroneous classification by the Collector of Customs at the port of New York of his merchandise, imported from Japan on September 1, 1936.

The imported merchandise consists of certain silk cloth invoiced as “100% silk plain cloth.” The collector classified the same under paragraph 1205 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “Woven fabrics in the piece, wholly or in chief value of silk, not specially provided for, 55 per centum ad valorem.” In his protest and before the trial court, the importer claimed, among other things, that the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 1205 as “Silk bolting cloth, not specially provided for, 30% ad valorem” in accordance with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement between the United States and Switzerland, 49 Stat. 3917 (hereinafter referred to as the Swiss Trade Agreement), and the generalization clause contained in Section 350 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreement Act of June 12, 1934 (48 Stat. 943).

[172]*172In this court, appellee relies solely upon the claim that tbe merchandise is dutiable at 30 per centum under paragraph 1205 by virtue of the generalization clause above referred to.

The material statutory and trade agreement provisions follow:

Tariff Act of 1980:
Par, 1205. Woven fabrics in tbe piece, wholly or in chief value of silk, not specially provided for, 55 per centum ad valorem; * * *.
Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act:
Sec. 350 (a) * * * The proclaimed duties and other import restrictions shall apply to articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of all foreign countries, whether imported directly, or indirectly: * * *
Swiss Trade Agreement (signed by the parties January 9, 1936; effective date February 15, 1936):
' 1205. Silk bolting cloth, not specially provided for, 30% ad val.

The number “1205,” as used, indicates the number of the paragraph of the Tariff Act of 1930.

At the trial below, the importer introduced the testimony of one witness; the Government none. No sample of the merchandise was submitted. From the testimony of the sole witness in the case, Dieran Armaghanian, the importer-appellee, we quote all that we regard as pertinent in deciding the issue at bar:

Q. How long have you been in this business, Mr. Armaghanian? — A. In this particular line of silk business, you mean?
Q. All right, limit it to that. — A. I have been in the silk business for the last twenty years; before I came to this country.
Q. What do you include in your classification of silk business? — A. Well, I have in the Old Country I had dress goods as well as cloth for bolting purposes for making sifters and screens.
Q. Do you now import bolting cloth? — A. That is my main business. *******
Q. I will ask you: What is the cloth covered by this invoice in suit? — A. It is bolting cloth.
Q. Is that cloth used for bolting or sifting? — A. It may be used for bolting or sifting; it may be used for passing through liquids or paints or dyes or any liquid or near liquid or in powder form.
Q. Will you please state whether or not the merchandise in suit is all silk?— A. It is all pure silk.
Q. Is it sized or unsized? — A. It is natural.
Judge Dallinger. What do you mean by “natural?”
The Witness. Not sized; it is natural.
Judge Dalmnger. That is what he asked you, whether it was sized or unsized.
By Mr. Carter:
Q. Do you know whether the merchandise in suit is gauze woven? — A. I don’t understand what you mean by “gauze woven.”
Q. Do you know the meaning of the word “leno?” — A. No; I do not. “Leno” means line.
Q. Do you know the meaning of the term “line woven?” — A. It means “line woven.”
Q. Is the merchandise in suit leno woven? — A. Yes; line woven.
Q. Do you know whether the merchandise in suit is bleached? — A. No.
[173]*173Q. You don’t know? — A. I don’t know whether it is bleached or not.
Q. Have you ever followed the sale of the merchandise in suit into consumption and seen it used? — A. Yes.
Q. How have you seen it used?-
* * * ' * * * *
A. It is always used on screens. It is made into a frame, always put on a frame. Otherwise, they could not use it. It is not good for anything else.
Judge Dallinger. You mean you have seen it used that way in this country?
The Witness. Always.
Judge Dallinger. I say you mean you have seen it used that way in this country?
The Witness. Yes, sir; always.
By Mr. Carter:
Q. For what purpose have you seen it used? — A. I have seen it being used for passing through pigments in the form of paint. I have seen it used for straining syrup. I have seen it being used for straining paint and other things in order to get it fine, even get liquid out of it. Almost every shop that does that kind of painting has it. They have special screens made out of it to pass the paint through before they start painting.
Q. You spoke of sifting pigments in the form of paint. Is that a dry mixture? — A. It may be mixed with paint. It may be mixed with water colors. It may be anything at all.
Q. Is it dry or wet? — A. It is in a dry condition, but I have also seen them make sample paints with paper. They put black paper on the table and with different designs and they put the screen on it and with the paper they get the impression to check it with the design, whether it is correct or not.
Q. Have you ever seen the merchandise in suit used for the process of screen painting? — A. In screen painting, yes.
Q. When you ordered the merchandise in suit what did you order?-
* * * * * * *
A. I ordered it as bolting cloth. * * *
Q. Under what name or names do you sell this merchandise in suit?
^ * * * * * *
A. I sell it as bolting cloth, or sometimes we call it stencil cloth. It is bolting cloth for stencil. They are the only two forms and two names we use in the trade. [Italics supplied.]

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 C.C.P.A. 170, 1939 CCPA LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-armaghanian-ccpa-1939.