Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United States

70 Cust. Ct. 171, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3444

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedMay 23, 1973

DocketC.D. 4426

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 Cust. Ct. 171 (Westinghouse Electric 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

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 171, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3444 (cusc 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Foed, Judge:

The actions listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, are the subject of a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to rule 4.9 of the rules of this court. It is contended that certain earphones imported with tape recorders which were classified as “headphones” under item 684.70, Tariff Schedules of the United States, are properly dutiable as parts of tape recorders under item 685.40, Tariff Schedules of the United States.

Defendant in its answers admits that said items were improperly classified under item 684.70., Tariff Schedules of the United States, pursuant to the decision in United States v. General Electric Co., 58 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 1021 (1971), but alleges they are properly classifiable as entireties with the tape recorders with which they were imported. The classification of earphones imported with radios was recently decided in the case of Transamerican Electronics Corp. et al. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 35, 4405, 354 F. Supp. 1369 (1973). The court therein held said earphones imported with radios and chiefly used with said radios to be properly classifiable as parts of said radios rather than as entireties with the radios.

Following the decisions in the above cases and considering the admissions contained in defendant’s answers, the court finds that earphones imported with tape recorders and chiefly so used are parts of, rather than entireties with, tape recorders.

Since all necessary facts have not been admitted in defendant’s answers, the court does not deem a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be the proper remedy for plaintiffs. However, rule 4.9 of the rules of this court permits the court to consider such motion to be a motion for summary judgment. Defendant in its reply makes such a request and plaintiffs in their response join in said request.

Accordingly, motion for summary judgment holding the earphones [173]*173imported with the tape recorders to be parts of said tape recorders under item 685.40, Tariff Schedules of the United States, is granted. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

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

Foed, Judge:

The actions listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, are the subject of a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to rule 4.9 of the rules of this court. It is contended that certain earphones imported with tape recorders which were classified as “headphones” under item 684.70, Tariff Schedules of the United States, are properly dutiable as parts of tape recorders under item 685.40, Tariff Schedules of the United States.

Defendant in its answers admits that said items were improperly classified under item 684.70., Tariff Schedules of the United States, pursuant to the decision in United States v. General Electric Co., 58 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 1021 (1971), but alleges they are properly classifiable as entireties with the tape recorders with which they were imported. The classification of earphones imported with radios was recently decided in the case of Transamerican Electronics Corp. et al. v. United States, 70 Cust. Ct. 35, 4405, 354 F. Supp. 1369 (1973). The court therein held said earphones imported with radios and chiefly used with said radios to be properly classifiable as parts of said radios rather than as entireties with the radios.

Following the decisions in the above cases and considering the admissions contained in defendant’s answers, the court finds that earphones imported with tape recorders and chiefly so used are parts of, rather than entireties with, tape recorders.

Since all necessary facts have not been admitted in defendant’s answers, the court does not deem a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be the proper remedy for plaintiffs. However, rule 4.9 of the rules of this court permits the court to consider such motion to be a motion for summary judgment. Defendant in its reply makes such a request and plaintiffs in their response join in said request.

Accordingly, motion for summary judgment holding the earphones [173]*173imported with the tape recorders to be parts of said tape recorders under item 685.40, Tariff Schedules of the United States, is granted. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Cust. Ct. 171, 1973 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 3444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westinghouse-electric-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack