Page images
PDF
EPUB

CASES REPORTED IN FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

Erie Navigation Company v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 47, C.D. 4820; 475 F.

Supp. 160 General Electric Company v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 56, C.D. 4822; 476 F.

Supp. 1082 Hawaiian Motor Company v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 70, C.D. 4790; 473 F.

Supp. 787 Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 234, C.D. 4805; 475 F. Supp. 683 Ozen Sound Devices v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 29, C.D. 4816; 476 F. Supp.

1078 Pasco Terminals, Inc. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 65, C.D. 4823; 477 F. Supp.

201 Porter, David E. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 259, C.D. 4808; 475 F. Supp. 688 RMS Electronics, Inc. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 37, C.D. 4818; 480 F.

Supp. 302 SCM Corporation v. United States (Brother International Corporation, Party

In-Interest), 82 Cust. Ct. 351, C.R.D. 79–11; 473 F. Supp. 791 Seagull Marine v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 10, C.D. 4814; 475 F. Supp. 158 Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 272, C.D. 4810; 475 F.

Supp. 1183 Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 287, C.D. 4811; 475 F.

Supp. 1193 Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 4812; 476 F.

Supp. 1075 Voss International Corp. v. United States, 82 Cust. Ct. 190, C.D. 4801; 473 F. Supp. 327

(VII)

DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES

CUSTOMS COURT

Customs

(C.D. 4812)

TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. UNITED STATES,

DEFENDANT

On Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment

Court No. 77801757

(Defendant's motion granted; plaintiff's cross-motion denied.)

(Dated July 27, 1979)

Zolno op Schiffer, Acting file for Customs defen

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Robert E. Burke, Donald J. Unger, and Mark S. Zolno on the briefs) for the plaintiff.

Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, Field Office for Customs Litigation (Sidney N. Weiss and Susan Handler-Menahem on the briefs), for the defendant.

MALET2, Judge: This case which comes before the court on crossmotions for summary judgment involves the proper tariff classification of "solution administration sets” that were imported from Ireland and entered at the port of Charleston, S.C., between June and December 1976.

Upon entry, the merchandise was classified by Customs under item 709.27 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), as modified by T.D. 68-9, which covers medical, dental, surgical, and veterinary instruments and apparatus and parts thereof, other, and assessed duty at the rate of 18 percent ad valorem. Plaintiff claims the proper classification is under item 772.65, TSUS, as modified by T.D. 68–9, which covers hose, pipe, and tubing, not specially provided for, of rubber or plastics suitable for conducting gases or liquids, with or

(1)

without attached fittings, and carries a duty rate of 4 percent ad valorem.

The Statutes
The following are the pertinent provisions of TSUS:
Classified under: Schedule 7, part 2:

Subpart B.—Medical and Surgical In

struments and Apparatus; X-Ray
Apparatus

Medical, dental, surgical and vet

erinary instruments and apparatus
(including electro-medical appara-
tus and ophthalmic instruments),
and parts thereof:

Other:

* * * * * * * 709.27

Other.--
Claimed under: Schedule 7, Part 12:

Subpart C.Specified Rubber and Plastics

Products

18% ad val.

-------------

772.65 Hose, pipe, and tubing, all the foregoing

not specially provided for, of rubber or
plastics, suitable for conducting gases
or liquids, with or without attached
fittings---

4% ad val. The Facts The material facts are not in dispute. They show that the imported solution administration sets are composed of various plastic and rubber parts which are fitted together in their imported state. Au illustration of a set is depicted below:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »