« PreviousContinue »
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
DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. UNITED STATES,
On Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary
Court No. 77–8–01757
(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
without attached fittings, and carries a duty rate of 4 percent ad valorem.
Subpart B.—Medical and Surgical In
struments and Apparatus; X-Ray
Medical, dental, surgical and vet
erinary instruments and apparatus
* * * * * * * 709.27
Subpart C.Specified Rubber and Plastics
18% ad val.
772.65 Hose, pipe, and tubing, all the foregoing
not specially provided for, of rubber or
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: