*All dispositive opinions promulgated under the Rules of the Customs Court effective October 1, 1970 499-071-73-33 (493) OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT (see CABS FOR HARVESTING COMBINES; ACTS, ADMINISTRATIVE IRREGULARITY, PROCEDURAL (see AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED; OF (see AMERICAN GOODS RE- TURNED; FISH HOOKS, C.D. 4377). ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY (see AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED; PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY (see AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED; ADVANCED IN VALUE OR IMPROVED IN CONDITION, NOT AFFIDAVIT OF NONPAYMENT BY CUSTOMS OFFICIAL INCREASED DUTIES NOT PAID (see MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAIL- AFFIDAVITS NOT SIMILAR TO AFFIDAVITS IN MOTION FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PAY INCREASED DUTIES (see ALPHABETICAL BLOCKS TOYS, AND PARTS OF TOYS, NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR, OTHER (see PROTEST, PROPER AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL (see AMERICAN GOODS AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED FISH HOOKS RE, J.-Certain American made tin sheets and sorted fish hooks Page. AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED-Continued FISH HOOKS-Continued duty-free under TSUS item 807.00 as articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the products of the United States. The court held that the fish hooks were properly classifiable under item 800.00 and hence, duty free, as products of the United States; that absent an alteration or change in the fish hooks themselves, the mere sorting and repacking, even for the purposes of resale to the ultimate consumer did not preclude their classification as returned American products; and that having determined that the fish hooks were properly classifiable under item 800.00, it was not necessary to consider plaintiff's alternative claim under item 807.00, and to decide whether they were "assembled" as required by that provision. The court also held that liquidation of an entry prior to the expiration of the time allowed by statute for filing an appeal for reappraisement is voidable and may be rendered void only by the filing of a timely appeal by either party, and that if no appeal is filed within the statutory period, the liquidation is valid; that the liquidation in the instant case was merely voidable, and since no appeal for reappraisement was filed and since neither party was prejudiced, the liquidation was valid. Accordingly, the claim for duty-free entry of the controverted fish hooks under item 800.00 was sustained. RICHARDSON, J.-Concurs in the result on the authority of National Silver Co. v. United States, 59 CCPA 185, C.A.D. 1064 (1972). John V. Carr & Son, Inc., C.D. 4377_- Appealed to U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Appeal 5525 JACKET FRONTS LANDIS, J.-Certain jacket fronts were classified as women's wearing apparel under item 382.03, Tariff Schedules of the United States. It was conceded that the jacket fronts were properly dutiable under TSUS item 382.03, and that the appraised value of the jacket fronts, $18,340, included the cost or value of American products valued at $9,588. The only dispute was whether, under TSUS item 382.03, the jacket fronts were dutiable at the full value of the imported jacket fronts as entered and appraised, namely, $18,340, or dutiable at the full value, less the $9,588 cost or value of that part of the jacket fronts as constituted an American product, under either TSUS item 807.00 or item 800.00. The majority of the court held that the jacket fronts which were made from American fabric cut in a pattern in the United States, and sent to Hong Kong to have beads sewn on, the neck cut out, and the fabric slit down the front to make a pair of beaded jacket fronts, were not, on return to the United States, dutiable at the full value of the jacket fronts, less the cost or value of that part of the jacket fronts, as constituted an American product, under either TSUS item 807.00 or item 800.00; that the evidence did not preponderantly establish, one way or the other, that cutting the fabric was an operation incidental to the sewing or assembly of the beads to the fabric in the tariff sense of the TSUS item 807 requirement that the product of the United States not be advanced in value or improved in condition except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process; that articles assembled abroad in whole or in part were not within the purview of TSUS item 800.00, which provides for products of the United States returned after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means while abroad. The majority of the court also held that the claim under TSUS item 807.00 was a proper amendment of the original protest, which claimed that the merchandise of the value of $9,588 was free of duty under TSUS item 800.00. Accordingly, the protest was overruled as to the claims under items 800.00 and 807.00. NEWMAN, J.-Concurs with views of Judge Landis respecting the merits, but comments briefly on the jurisdictional question raised sua sponte, by Judge Richardson. Agrees there is an inconsistency Page 78 AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED-Continued between certain statements made by the importer in the official docu- RICHARDSON, J.-Dissenting-A jurisdictional question arises in this case from the condition of the returned material as manifested in the protest vis-a-vis the item 800.00 protest claim under subpart A of part 1 of schedule 8 of TSUS which is contemplative exclusively of free entry of returned American goods in an unimproved or unadvanced condition. The documentation in the official papers to which the protest claim for the returned American material has reference reflects such material in an improved or advanced condition, and therefore a claim in the protest for classification of such material under item 800.00 would not be justiciable as a matter of law, since that tariff provision only governs the classification of returned American goods in an unimproved or unadvanced condition, and claims which are unjusticiable when pleaded cannot support amendments which purport to make them justiciable after the statute of limitations has run. Even though amendment of the protest was made and granted at the trial on circuit, such an amendment is not effective unless and until approved by the division of the court to which the case is assigned for determination. Would deny the motion to amend the protest. Pistorino & Co., Inc., C.D. 4378_. AMUSEMENT AND GREETINGS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; GREETINGS AND AMUSE- GREETINGS (see TOYS, NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR; APPAREL, WEARING Scarves, not ORNAMENTED, of wool, not KNIT (see WEARING AP- FINALITY OF APPRAISEMENT (see CASTINGS, STEEL; FURNACES, FINALITY OF APPRAISEMENT (see CHEMICALS; MONO-, DI- AND FINALITY OF APPRAISEMENT (see PASTES, URETHANE; PLASTICS FINALITY OF APPRAISEMENT (see WEARING APPAREL; SCARVES, ARTICLES NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR, OF WOOD FERN LEAVES AND BANANAS; RUBBER OR PLASTICS, OTHER ARTICLES OF FLOWERS Exclusionary headnote (see ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS; FERN Certain plastic artificial fern leaves and bananas were classified Page 93 |