United States v. F. B. Vandegrift & Co.

Customs and Patent Appeals

United States v. F. B. Vandegrift & Co.

468 F.2d 1400, 59 C.C.P.A. 62, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 399

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1972

DocketNo. 5438, C.A.D. 1039

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 F.2d 1400 (United States v. F. B. Vandegrift & Co.) 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. F. B. Vandegrift & Co., 468 F.2d 1400, 59 C.C.P.A. 62, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 399 (ccpa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Rich, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment of the First Division of the Customs Court, 65 Cust. Ct. 260, C.D. 4086 (1970), sustaining ap-pellee’s protest against the classification of certain toothed instruments in chief value of brass, used to heat-straighten kinky hair, as other combs valued over $4.50 per gross, TSUS 750.15. The Customs Court held that the importations were other hand tools NSPF of brass, TSUS 651.49, and the Government does not now argue that that classification was inappropriate if the original classification was wrong.

We find that we have little to add to Judge Rosenstein’s careful opinion below, familiarity with which, is assumed.

Item 750.15 is not an eo nomine provision encompassing all articles which look like combs or are known as combs; the word “combs” used therein is defined in the headnote which is a limiting factor in this case. As counsel for appellee put it in his brief, “For the government representatives to argue that a tariff definition should be disregarded is so fraught with error as to warrant no further comment.” The trial court’s finding that the instant goods “process” the hair was a finding of fact which was fully supported by the evidence, and we will not disturb it here. Additionally, we agree with the trial court that, whatever bounds are eventually found for the word “adjusting” (which the record abundantly indicates is not commonly used in the trade), “processing” the hair is more than “adjusting” it.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Customs Court is affirmed.

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

Rich, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment of the First Division of the Customs Court, 65 Cust. Ct. 260, C.D. 4086 (1970), sustaining ap-pellee’s protest against the classification of certain toothed instruments in chief value of brass, used to heat-straighten kinky hair, as other combs valued over $4.50 per gross, TSUS 750.15. The Customs Court held that the importations were other hand tools NSPF of brass, TSUS 651.49, and the Government does not now argue that that classification was inappropriate if the original classification was wrong.

We find that we have little to add to Judge Rosenstein’s careful opinion below, familiarity with which, is assumed.

Item 750.15 is not an eo nomine provision encompassing all articles which look like combs or are known as combs; the word “combs” used therein is defined in the headnote which is a limiting factor in this case. As counsel for appellee put it in his brief, “For the government representatives to argue that a tariff definition should be disregarded is so fraught with error as to warrant no further comment.” The trial court’s finding that the instant goods “process” the hair was a finding of fact which was fully supported by the evidence, and we will not disturb it here. Additionally, we agree with the trial court that, whatever bounds are eventually found for the word “adjusting” (which the record abundantly indicates is not commonly used in the trade), “processing” the hair is more than “adjusting” it.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Customs Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 1400, 59 C.C.P.A. 62, 1972 CCPA LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-f-b-vandegrift-co-ccpa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack