United States v. Brager-Larsen

36 C.C.P.A. 1, 1948 CCPA LEXIS 334
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 2, 1948
DocketNo. 4577
StatusPublished

This text of 36 C.C.P.A. 1 (United States v. Brager-Larsen) 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. Brager-Larsen, 36 C.C.P.A. 1, 1948 CCPA LEXIS 334 (ccpa 1948).

Opinion

JacKsoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The United States appealed from a judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, C. D. 1042, sustaining the protest of appellee in which it was claimed that an importation of fox furs was entitled to entry duty free as undressed fur skins not specially provided for under paragraph 1681 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Collector of Customs at the port of New York assessed the merchandise for duty under the provisions of paragraph 1519 of the act as “silver or black fox furs or skins, dressed or undressed,” at the rate of 37K per centum ad valorem pursuant to the Canadian Trade Agreement, T.D. 49752.

The pertinent portion of paragraph 1519 reads as follows:

(c) Silver or black fox furs or skins, dressed or undressed, not specially provided for 50 per centum ad valorem (reduced by the Canadian Trade Agreement to 37}i per centum ad valorem).

Paragraph 1681 provides for free entry of undressed furs and fur skins not specially provided for.

It is agreed by the parties that the imported merchandise was ■ undressed skins.

The fox skins were imported from Oslo, Norway, and were invoiced as raw platinum fur skins.

The appellee (importer) testified that he was a representative of the Norges Platina Association, a cooperative body engaged in the breeding of foxes in Norway. He came to the United States to sell the imported fox skins at auction, which appears to be the method employed in selling all fox skins. The involved goods were sold in that maimer as Norwegian super platin or platina fox skins.

Appellee testified that fox skins of the same character as those imported were first produced in Norway in 1934. He testified that he has been intimately connected with the production of such skins, “Since the fox was born in 1933.” It appears from the record that [3]*3at tbe time of passage of the involved tariff act, fox skins, such as those imported, were not known.

Appellee in his testimony gave a highly informative and meticulously complete record concerning the first platinum fox born in Norway, the history of the breeding of that fox with silver foxes upon which the claim of mutation or change of color phase from the silver to platinum was based, and described the changes present in the platinum fox which differentiated it from the silver fox from which the platinum fox was bred. That appellee is highly skilled and thoroughly experienced in the fox raising industry is clear. It is also clear that he was familiar with such industry in all of the countries of the world where silver foxes are produced and their pelts sold.

There is no issue here with respect to commercial designation. The question to be decided is simply whether or not the merchandise involved is properly embraced within the common meaning of the words "silver or black fox skins.” It is unnecessary to relate in detail the testimony of the witnesses. The trial was started in New York, transferred to Milwaukee, and finally completed in New York. Twenty-seven witnesses appeared on behalf of appellant and 15 for appellee. In addition to the testimony of men engaged in the fox raising business and those in the fox pelt dealing industry, two expert geneticists gave testimony, one for appellant and one for appellee. A great number of paper exhibits comprising advertising material, accounts, letters, and the like were received in evidence.

In order to sustain his burden of proof, appellee was only obliged to present evidence to prove that the imported platinum fox sldns were not silver or black fox furs or skins within the common meaning of that expression.

It is well settled that the common meaning of a tariff term is not a question of fact, but a question of law. United States v. Shalom Co., 33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 29, 35, C. A. D. 311; Stephen Bug Mills v. United States, 32 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 110, 115, C. A. D. 293; United States v. Florea & Co., Inc. 25 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 292, 296, T. D. 49396.

In determining the common meaning of words, courts may receive evidence as to such meaning and as to the name to be applied to a given article in common acceptance, but such evidence is merely advisory to the court. Courts may consult dictionaries and other authorities and also draw upon their own knowledge of materials within the common understanding in making their determination of common meaning. Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc. v. United States, 30 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 24, 30, C. A. D. 209; United States v. John B. Stetson Co., 21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 3, 9, T. D. 46319; United States v. Flory & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 156, 159, T. D. 42219.

The common meaning of the eo nomine designation “silver or black fox furs” must be determined as of the date of the enactment of the [4]*4tariff act. W. J. Lake & Co., et al. v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 247, 251, 252, C. A. D. 94; United States v. Belgam Corp. et al., 22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 402, 405, T. D. 47402.

The levying of duty on silver or black fox skins appeared first in paragraph 1420 of the Tariff Act of 1922, and seemingly was placed there for the protection of the silver fox raising industry which, at that time, was in its relative infancy. Shortly after the effective date of the act of 1922, to wit June 30, 1923, the United States Department of Agriculture issued its Bulletin No. 1151 entitled “Silver Fox Farming” by Frank G. Ashbrook, Biologist in Charge, Division of Fur Resources, Bureau of Biological Survey, in which appears the following:

What is a Silveb Fox?
The name silver fox, as commonly used by furriers, includes the dark phases of the ordinary red fox, variously called silver, silver-gray, silver-black, or black (PL I). The color of the red fox of the northeastern States and of its allies of the colder parts of North America varies from red to black, and these extremes, with the gradations between them, form four more or less distinct phases, known, respectively, as red, cross or patch, silver, and black.
The silver fox, therefore, is a color phase of the red ior. It is dark all over, with silver hairs intermixed, but no red, and the tip of the tail is generally, but not always, white. The guard hairs which give the silver appearance to the pelage are not entirely white, but are black with a white band, and some guard hairs are entirely black. .Variation in guard hairs is shown in Figure 1.

In the year of 1922, “silver fox” was defined by William E. Austin, B. S., a recognized authority, in bis book, “Fur Dressing and Fur Dyeing,” as follows:

Silver fox 30 x 10”. The under hair is close and fine, and the top hair, which is black to silvery, is 3” long. The fur on the neck usually runs almost black, and in some cases the black extends over half the length of the skin. When all black, it is a natural black fox, and is exceedingly rare and high priced. * * * The tail is always tipped white.

In his book on “Fur Farming for Profit,” 1929, Mr. Ashbrook quotes the second paragraph of the foregoing quotation from Bulletin No. 1151 in identical language. In the revised edition of his book, published in 1948 (Orange Judd Publishing Co., Inc., New York), we find the following:

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

Related

United States v. Flory
15 Ct. Cust. 156 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 C.C.P.A. 1, 1948 CCPA LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brager-larsen-ccpa-1948.