Voss Int. Corp. v. United States

61 Cust. Ct. 123, 287 F. Supp. 989, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2237
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 21, 1968
DocketC.D. 3544
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 Cust. Ct. 123 (Voss Int. Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Voss Int. Corp. v. United States, 61 Cust. Ct. 123, 287 F. Supp. 989, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2237 (cusc 1968).

Opinion

Beckworth, Judge:

The raercbandise involved in these cases, consolidated at the trial, consists of metal shower heads, imported from Japan and entered at the port of Los Angeles on April 3, 1961, and September 19, 1961. They were assessed with duty at 19 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as articles in chief value of brass, not specially provided for. It is claimed that they are properly dutiable at 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 339 of said tariff act, as modified, as household utensils in chief value of brass.

The pertinent provisions of the tariff act, as modified, are as follows:

Paragraph 397, as modified by T.D. 54108:

Articles or wares not specially provided for, whether partly or wholly manufactured:

#**❖*#*
Composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other base metal (except lead), but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver * * *:
^ % ‡ #
Not wholly or in chief value of tin or tin plate:
$ Í ¥
Other, composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, brass, bronze, zinc, or aluminum (except * * *)_ 19% ad val.
Paragraph 339, as modified by T.D. 54108:

Table, household, kitchen, and hospital utensils, and hollow or flat ware, not specially provided for, whether or not containing electrical heating elements as constituent parts:

$$$$$$$
Not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, and not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of:
Brass_ 12%% ad val.

Four types of shower heads are involved herein, designated on the invoices as Model 303 2" Showerheads, Model 302 3" Showerheads, [125]*125Model 301 4" Showerbeads, and 2" C. P. Ball joint Showerheads, M-310 (New Type Showerheads). Plaintiff introduced samples of the first three models into evidence as exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Joseph E. Bloomberg, plaintiff’s general manager, testified that Model M-310 was of the same construction and material as the others but differed in the design of the body and the balljoint section. It was stipulated that the merchandise was in chief value of brass.

Mr. Bloomberg testified that the business of Voss International Corp. was the distribution and marketing of plumbing items and that he was the supervisor of marketing, distribution, purchase, and sale of all materials. He had been with Voss International for 8 years and had previously been supervisor of a chain of jewelry stores and president of an importing firm which manufactured and distributed plumbing items. He is not a plumber.

The witness said he was familiar with the items involved herein as it was part of his job to understand and know the merchandise which he purchased. He said that the internal construction of all of them was the same and that there was no basic difference, except for size and external styling, such as the adjusting handles. These shower heads have a side arm which adjusts the rate of flow of water so that the user can get a very fine spray or a very heavy flow of water through the shower. The arm also permits the shower to remain open so that water will not accumulate and cause a lot of lime and corrosion within the shower head, as is very common with ordinary nonadjustable shower heads. This feature was not common on shower heads 20 years ago.

The witness said he had installed one of the largest-sized shower heads (exhibit 3) in an existing shower in his own home by threading it onto the existing arm and tightening it. He used household pliers to do the work, not a wrench. It took him about a minute to remove the old head and about the same time to put on the new one. No damage was done to the shower fixture or the wall of the bathroom.

The witness explained that the shower head is not attached to the water pipe but to the shower arm which extends from the wall. The shower arm threads into the plumbing connection. There is an indentation on the outside of these shower heads which makes it convenient for pliers or a wrench to grasp the slippery surface.

According to Mr. Bloomberg, these shower heads will fit almost any water outlet throughout the United States. He said it was common practice for all shower heads to be made so as to fit any existing attaclnnent.

The witness testified that he had had occasion to see how these shower heads were used, but gave no instances except as to the installation in his own home. He also said he had seen such items installed in new homes, but gave no details. He was asked:

[126]*126Q. Would you say that these shower heads serve to enhance the convenience or comfort of a household dweller?

$ $ $ $ ❖ * *

A. Yes.

Mr. Bloomberg stated that Voss International sells these shower heads “all over the United States, regional area western United States, but we do some selling on the East Coast, down South and Texas.” His firm sells through wholesale distributing channels, including the wholesale hardware industry, and also directly to retail establishments and to the wholesale plumbing industry. He said that the wholesale plumbing industry caters largely to contractors and that the wholesale hardware industry deals primarily with retail outlets or sells to the homeowner or consumer. He said that the greatest number of his sales have been in the wholesale hardware trade. He has personally seen these items for sale in department stores, hardware stores, plumbing shops, golf pro shops, and men’s stores. They are also sold in novelty gift departments. The largest size retails for $12.95 through $15.95; the middle size for $8.95 through $12.95; and the small size from $1.95 to $5.95.

According to Mr. Bloomberg, his firm puts out a list which depicts items which it sells, including shower heads, sink strainers, gate valves, and traps. He said it sells plumbing items, although that is only part of its 'business, and mentioned gate valves, steel pipe, sink traps, and gas valves. He defined plumbing items as those which would necessitate some technical knowledge in order to make installation, or within the jurisdiction of the plumbing code.

He was aware of the fact that the merchandise involved herein was invoiced as plumbing supplies but pointed out that the invoices were made by the manufacturer, a Japanese company. His firm had purchased other types of shower heads from this manufacturer. They did not have the adjustable feature for regulating the flow of water nor the balljoint feature which allows the head to be rotated. He had not installed any of them.

Plaintiff claims that these shower heads are dutiable as household utensils, citing Davies, Turner & Company v. United States, 47 CCPA 129, C.A.D. 744 (water mixers); United States v. Lipman’s, 52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859 (hose nozzles); and Globe Importing Company v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 248, Abstract 65882 (aerators).

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

Related

Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United States
76 Cust. Ct. 237 (U.S. Customs Court, 1976)
International Artware Corp. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 143 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 277 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
New York Merchandise Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 674 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)
Western Oilfields Supply Co. v. United States
62 Cust. Ct. 182 (U.S. Customs Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Cust. Ct. 123, 287 F. Supp. 989, 1968 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 2237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voss-int-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1968.