duty free entry pursuant to item 800.00 of the tariff schedules. And, in view of this conclusion it becomes unnecessary for us to consider plaintiff's alternative claim under item 806.20 of the tariff schedules. The claim in the protest for duty free entry of the involved tomatoes pursuant to item 800.00 of the tariff schedules is sustained, and judgment will be entered herein accordingly. (C.D. 4053) ALDRICH CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES Chemicals CLASSIFICATION-ALCOHOL-TRIOL Plaintiff successfully proved that the importation is a polyhydric alcohol of a type known as "triol". Testimony that the importation is an alcohol proves that it belongs to that functional group known as alcohols and is specifically described in the Tariff Schedules of the United States as a "triol" pursuant to item 428.44. United States Customs Court, First Division Protest 67/28729 against the decision of the district director of customs at the port of Milwaukee [Judgment for plaintiff.] (Decided July 24, 1970) Bernard E. Edelstein for the plaintiff. William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Bernard J. Babb, trial attorney), for the defendant. Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges WATSON, Judge: This protest places in issue the classification of a chemical importation described as "isopropylidene-D-glucofuranose" which was imported on or about October 6, 1965. The merchandise was classified pursuant to item 428.46 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States as "other" polyhydric alcohols, esters, and ethers, and substituted derivatives thereof, and was assessed with duty at the rate of 3 cents per pound plus 15 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable pursuant to item 428.44 of said tariff schedules as "triols" and dutiable at the rate of 10.5 per centum ad valorem. The record in this case consists of the testimony of one witness and two exhibits. The testimony of Dr. Alfred Bader, plaintiff's president and a qualified chemist, establishes without contradiction that the importation is an alcohol of a type known as a triol due to the fact that it contains three hydroxy groups, that is to say, three groups of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The three hydroxy groups were identified by Dr. Bader on a diagram of the importation's molecular structure placed in evidence as exhibit 1. Defendant offers no evidence and relies instead on a legal argument that notwithstanding the proof that the importation possesses the structure of a triol, plaintiff must still prove that the importation "functions" as an alcohol. Defendant cites the language of headnote 1 in schedule 4, part 2, subpart D, which states that "[o]rganic compounds in this subpart are arranged according to functional group” and other language1 indicating that the TSUS provides for chemicals by "functional" groups in support of its argument that plaintiff must prove "how the chemical functions or performs." We fail to see that the language cited by plaintiff requires anything more than that plaintiff prove that the chemical is what it is claimed to be, which has been done. We understand the witness' testimony, that the importation is an alcohol, to mean that it functions as an alcohol. The testimony clearly establishes that the importation belongs to that functional group known as alcohols of the polyhydric variety and is, specifically, a triol. The testimony also conforms to our understanding of the term "triol" as explained in the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 2 discussion of alcohols at page 304. **According to the I.U.C. [International Union of Chemistry] method, the name of the alcohol is derived from the name of the hydrocarbon corresponding to the longest straight chain containing the alcohol function, by dropping the final "e" and adding the suffix "ol" (or "-diol," "-triol," etc., according to the number of hydroxyl groups). *** 1Tariff Classification Study Explanatory and Background Materials, Schedule 4, page 59. 'Interscience Publishers, Inc. (1947). We note that the chemical structure of the importation also includes three groupings known as ether, that is to say oxygen flanked by carbon in three places. Since the testimony establishes that the importation is an alcohol and a triol, the ether groupings are not relevant to the classification and it would be incumbent upon defendant to prove otherwise. In light of the above, we find that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case that the importation consists of a triol as set forth in item 428.44 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Products fabricated in the United States and consisting of yellow paper tape, acetate cloth tape, convergence wire, two kinds of magnet wire, resinite tube, kraft paper tube, two kinds of kraft paper, acetate, and two kinds of wax were exported to Canada where they were incorporated into certain T.V. transformers that were imported into the United States from Canada, entered at Chicago, Ill., and classified in liquidation under the provision for transformers in item 682.10 of TSUS, with duty allowance being made for certain American made products other than the above pursuant to item 807.00 of TSUS. The importer contends by way of protest that additional duty allowance should have been made in liquidation for the above products of American origin pursuant to item 807.00. The evidence discloses that the products in issue were subjected, while abroad in Canada, to measuring, cutting, winding, melting, among other things, to form high and low voltage coils which, together with steel frame, aluminum frame, sponge rubber interlining, terminal board with mounted metal parts, and a black coded lead wire for looping around the low voltage coil, comprise the units making up the imported transformers, although there is no evidence in the record as to how the transformers are made. Held, the exported products of American origin in issue are not "fabricated components" within the common meaning of that term used in item 807.00 at the time of exportation from the United States, as they are used abroad in the assembly or fabrication of components which are in turn assembled with other components to form the imported article. Item 807.00 does not contemplate such dual assembly processes abroad with respect to American products, and the cutting involved on such products in the formation of components abroad must be distinguished from the permissible cutting or fitting of a ready made component in the assembly of the imported article. United States Customs Court, Third Division Protest 68/4142-6115 against the decision of the district director of customs at the port of Chicago [Judgment for defendant.] (Decided July 24, 1970) Schwartz & Lidstrom (Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Joseph Schwartz, and Peter J. Fitch of counsel) for the plaintiff. William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General (Bernard J. Babb and Jeffrey D. Latten, trial attorneys), for the defendant. Before RICHARDSON, LANDIS, and ROSENSTEIN, Judges RICHARDSON, Judge: The merchandise covered by this protest consists of horizontal output transformers used in the manufacture of television receiving sets which were exported from Canada in 1967, entered at Chicago, Ill., and classified in liquidation under the provision for transformers in item 682.10 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States at the duty rate of 12.5 per centum ad valorem, with duty allowance made pursuant to item 807.00 of the tariff schedules for certain parts of American origin incorporated in the transformers. The sole claim of the plaintiff-importer is that additional allowances should have been made in the liquidation of the imported articles for other "product[s] of the United States" pursuant to the provisions of item 807.00 of the tariff schedules. The articles for which duty allowance was made by the district director in liquidation pursuant to item 807.00 as aforesaid are contained in the foreign shipper's declaration in an affidavit entitled "American Goods Affidavit." These articles are: resinite coil form 1134" bradex wire kraft paper spacer eyelet 5'' lead wire plate cap terminal board UTR iron core air gap 31" lead wire 214′′ black sleeving 2" white sleeving wrapper carton At the trial counsel for the parties stipulated that an allowance in duty had been made for the aforementioned articles under item 807.00, and that, therefore, said articles were not in issue under the protest herein. Notwithstanding this stipulation, however, we find included in the list of grievances recited in plaintiff-importer's brief a claim for an allowance for the resinite coil form, bradex wire, kraft paper spacer, and eyelet, among other articles. It is to be noted that these four articles are among the articles set forth in the "American Goods Affidavit" and included in counsel's stipulation of articles for which an allowance had been made. It appears from the record that the rationale of the district director in making the duty allowances for these four articles and the other articles contained in said affidavit is that such articles were all cut or made to size before exportation from the United States. And in this regard the duty exempt articles differ from the remainder of the articles for which plaintiff claims a duty exemption under item 807.00. Item 807.00 of the tariff schedules, as amended, reads as follows: Articles assembled abroad in whole or in part of fabricated components, the product of the United States, which (a) were exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication, (b) have not lost their physical identity in such articles by change in form, shape, or otherwise, and (c) have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process such as cleaning, lubricating, and painting--. A duty upon the full value of the imported article, less the cost or value of such products of the United States (see headnote 3 of this subpart) duty allowance is actually yellow paper tape, acetate The products for which additional claimed herein by plaintiff consist of: cloth tape, convergence wire, two kinds of magnet wire, resinite tube, kraft paper tube, two kinds of kraft paper, acetate, and two kinds of wax. According to the testimony of Theodore F. Handing, executive vice-president of the plaintiff corporation, these products were fabricated in the United States, exported to Amplifone Canada, Limited, in Canada, and used there in the same fabricated form together with other parts in the assembly of one or other of two coils (i.e., high and low voltage coils) which are contained in the imported transformers. And it was also established in the testimony of this witness (who indicated that he has some engineering background and that he participated in the setting up of the Canadian operation) that the tapes |