United States v. J. A. Schneider & Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 352, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 303
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJanuary 22, 1934
DocketNo. 3646; No. 3647; No. 3651
StatusPublished

This text of 21 C.C.P.A. 352 (United States v. J. A. Schneider & 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. J. A. Schneider & Co., 21 C.C.P.A. 352, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 303 (ccpa 1934).

Opinion

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

These are appeals from two judgments of the United States Customs Court. Suits Nos. 3646 and 3647 are appeals by the Government from the judgments of the United States Customs Court in protests Nos. 553610-G/80178, etc., Abstract No. 22837, and protests Nos. 459311-G/78866, etc., T.D. 46159, respectively. Suit No. 3651 is a cross-appeal by the importers from those judgments.

Merchandise, consisting of thin pieces .of matched veneers of wood, of various sizes and shapes, inlaid with ornamental woods of various colors forming a variety of designs, was assessed for duty by the collector at the port of Chicago as parts of furniture at 40 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was “dutiable at 33%% under the last clause of par. 412, or at 20% under the first or last clause of par. 405,” of that act.

The paragraphs read as follows:

Par. 405. Veneers of wood, 20 per centum ad valorem; plywood, 40 per centum ad valorem, and in addition thereto on birch and alder plywood, 10 per centum ad valorem; wood unmanufactured, not specially provided for, 20 per centum ad valorem.
Par. 412. Spring clothespins, 20 cents per gross; furniture, wholly or partly finished, and parts thereof, and folding rules, all the foregoing, wholly or in chief chief value of wood, and not specially provided for, 40 per centum ad valorem; wood moldings and carvings to be used in architectural and furniture decoration, 40 per centum ad valorem; bent-wood furniture, wholly or partly finished, and parts thereof, 47% per centum ad valorem; paintbrush handles, wholly or in chief value of wood, 33% per centum ad valorem; wood flour, and manufactures of wood or bark, or of which wood or bark is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for, 33% per centum ad valorem.

The court below held, on the record before it, that the imported merchandise was not dutiable as parts of furniture, as assessed by the collector and as claimed by the Government; that it was not veneers of wood or wood unmanufactured, as claimed in the protests, but that it was dutiable as manufacturers of wood, not specially [354]*354provided for, at 33% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412, as alternatively claimed in the protests.

Both parties were dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by the trial court, and, accordingly, appealed from its judgments.

Counsel for the Government insist that the merchandise is dutiable as parts of furniture at 40 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412, as assessed by the collector.

Counsel for the importers, on the contrary, contend that the merchandise is dutiable as veneers of wood at only 20 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 405, but that if it is not so dutiable, it is dutiable as manufactures of wood at 33% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 412, as held by the trial court.

On the trial below, counsel for the importers introduced in evidence Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, and Collective Exhibit No. 3, as representative of the imported merchandise.

Exhibit No. 1 is rectangular in shape, about 26 inches in length and 17 inches in width. It is composed of matched veneers of wood inlaid with various colored woods. The inlays form a floral and scroll design. The several pieces composing the exhibit are held in place by paper glued to their under surfaces.

Exhibit No. 2 is circular in form, and about 22 inches in diameter. It has a center composed of matched veneers of wood, surrounded by an inlay of ornamental woods, and a border, differing in color from the center, composed of matched veneers of wood. The various pieces composing the exhibit are held together by means of paper glued to their under surfaces.

Collective Exhibit No. 3 consists of several small articles of various shapes, sizes, and designs, composed of matched veneers of wood inlaid with ornamental woods.

It appears from the record that all of the imported articles, represented by Exhibits 1 and 2, and Collective Exhibit 3, are approximately one twenty-fifth to one thirtieth inch in thickness. They are used for purposes of decoration on many articles of furniture, including the tops of tables, on walls, doors, household and shop fixtures, boxes, automobile panels, and other articles. We think it fairly appears from the record, however, that they are used chiefly on furniture. In any event, it has not been established that they are not chiefly so used. They are known, according to the witnesses, as “inlay veneers', inlaid veneers, fancy veneers, decorated veneers,” and “marquetry.”

The witness Wade S. Bender, president of J. A. Schneider & Co., one of the importers, stated that the involved articles were not suitable in their imported condition for their ultimate uses; that, in order to apply them to table tops or other articles, they must be trimmed, [355]*355“the veneer on which they are put is first routed out; they are glued to cheap wood, which is commonly known as plywood; then band-sawed or shaped, and sanded, and then finished, after which they are ready to be applied to the particular piece on which they are finally used.’’ Referring to illustrative Exhibit Y, an article similar to those in Collective Exhibit 3, the witness described the processes necessary to make it a part of a panel in furniture or other articles. He said:

If this were to be placed in a walnut panel, we would take walnut veneer, and cut out the veneer, rout out the veneer so that this would fit in. This in turn would be placed in there, and would be taped on the back. Of course, that walnut panel could be two feet long, or three feet, or four or eight feet long, depending upon how much veneer is to be added to this. Then after it is taped together, it would have to be applied to a core stock or plywood, sanded and finished, before a finished panel would be had.

The witness William M. Friedlaender, testifying for the importers, stated that he was familiar with the uses of articles like those here involved; that, in order to attach them to articles of furniture or other articles, it is necessary—

* * * to provide a core, as we term it, which may be of one, two, or three layers of wood laminated together. This exhibit 1 would then be glued, or 'what we would term the exposed surface, face down, on this core of wood. That is, put in presses and permitted to dry. Then it must be trimmed, run under a sander, or in a small shop it might be done with sandpaper or glass, and all of this paper that is glued to the back is sanded away, so that the surface would appear showing the same design that we have on the front. Then that must be run through another machine, must be trimmed or shaped to what particular type, round, oval, or that the table top is intended to be. Then it has got to be finished, lacquered, treated, or polished. Then it has to be fastened onto a table top and it becomes a table top.
Q. But do you say that all of these processes or manufacturing processes must be and are applied to articles like exhibits 1 and 2 before they can be or are used in any articles of furniture? — A. In any article at all.

The terms “veneer” and “marquetry” are defined respectively as follows:

Veneer, * * * 1.

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

Related

Ball v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 143 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)
United States v. Briggs Manufacturing Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 1 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
United States v. Downing & Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 194 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 C.C.P.A. 352, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-j-a-schneider-co-ccpa-1934.