*1 MICHEL, Before BISSELL and Judges, COWEN, Circuit Senior Judge. COWEN, Judge. Senior Circuit DECISION appeals The United States from a deci- sion of the United States Court of Interna- tional Trade which found that the Customs improperly Service had classified merchan- rectifying apparat- dise as “rectifiers us” under Item 682.60 of the Tariff Sched- (TSUS). ules of the Digital United States Equip. Corp. (Ct.Int’l 1988). We affirm.
BACKGROUND merchandise, subject imported generally power sup- can be described plies stipulated has been for purpose represented of this action to be Computer by the DEC Model H 7862-C Supply. Power classified this mer- rectifying appa- chandise as “rectifiers *2 268 Item of the TSUS. II 682.60 under
ratus” 6, 5 of the includes: part TSUS Schedule OPINION motors, Generators, motor-generators, static), (rotary transform- or converters “While the of a classification ers, rectifying apparatus, rectifiers law, question a the issue of term is of inductors; foregoing all which of the particular imported articles whether come goods, parts thereof: are electrical the of a classification term within definition fact, subject of to the is a the Court of appellee The contended and erroneous standard of review.” Simod these arti- agreed that International 1572, States, Am. 872 F.2d United provi- properly classifiable under a cles are omitted). (citations (Fed.Civ.1989) 1576 recognizes parts their use as of which sion namely, parts as of automatic in this case is basic factual issue thereof data-processing machines and units come articles within (now 676.54)of 676.52 under Item of the definition “rectifiers 6, 4, Subpart Part G of TSUS. Schedule apparatus” under Item 682.60 of encompasses: the TSUS contends, as the Government or whether machines; Calculating accounting ma- the articles come within the definition of chines, registers, postage-franking cash computers, i.e., parts of of automat- machines, machines, ticket-issuing ic data machines and items machines, incor- foregoing all the similar appellee thereof” under as the Item 657.52 calculating mechanism: porating a issue, On there contends. this factual was [*] [*] [*] s}: He [*] conflicting testimony by parties’ expert and the judge witnesses trial resolved the data-processing ma- Parts of automatic appellee. conflict favor of units thereof. chines and described In his not attempted Government has article nine the functions establish and has not established that categories, and then found that the detailed the trial court’s are clearly of fact four “elements which have article contains Instead, erroneous.1 the Government con of their a importance own vis-a-vis com- an tends that the issue involved this case is a role which it would be unrea- puter, and question of law a on which the Government as merely treat incidental or sonable to a support is entitled to de review. In novo ancillary to rectification.” position of this the Government relies on States, Hasbro Indus. Inc. v. judge considered authoritative United 879 The trial (Fed.Civ.1989). However, F.2d 838 they and found that reference works did held, case we also had held in government’s interpreta- as we Simod support not Am., that apparatus”. whether an item comes within tion of the definition a classification term ais imported mer- Having found that Indus., question of fact. 879 Hasbro F.2d impor- contained an abundance of chandise at 840. functions, the court conclud- tant additional im- aspects uniformly functional The courts have ed that the held that mer “by ported encompassed article not chandise constitutes more than a generous interpretation article particular even the most or which has additional provision for rectifiers and recti- nonsubordinate or coequal the tariff functions See, Accordingly, the as fying apparatus.” e.g., court that article. Unit doctrine, Ltd., Equip. held that under “more than” ed v. Flex States Track 59 improper 97, (1972); inadequate is an 458 TSUS 682.60 CCPA E. Green & issue, 31, for the at classification merchandise 59 CCPA Son (1971); it should be classified F.2d 1396 Prods. and that Servo-Tek Co. v. 416 F.2d under Item CCPA computers. Reply Appellant’s
1. See Brief at 5-6 n. 7. stated, performed supra, As chandise in that case made the factual cantly different function than the article merchandise has four additional functions upon described the classification relied ancillary which are not incidental or to by the Customs Service. *3 rectifying apparatus”. “rectifiers or emphasize We the fact that the Government has made no effort to show device issue here contains more erroneous, findings clearly
that these are cantly different functions than the devices and since find per we that there are two in either of the Fedtro cases. case, missible views of the evidence in this we cannot find that the trial court’s find
ings
erroneous,
of fact are
CONCLUSION
findings
credibility
are based on
deter
agree
We
with the
of the trial
minations,
evidence,
documentary
on
or on
court.
disputed by
These
are not
inferences from other facts.
Anderson
and,
Government
our
are
564, 574,
City, 470
Bessemer
U.S.
105 S.Ct. dispositive
presented
of the issue
in this
1504, 1511,
Similarly, analogous by in an decision it intended the term to encom- Court of pass “power supplies,” including power Customs and Patent Fed tro, supplies computers. Accordingly, Inc. v. United 59 CCPA 449 (1971), court, applying by erred as a matter of law doctrine”, defining “rectifying apparatus” “more than found that the mer- to exclude Therefore, computer supplies particular complexity or power era. modern certain complexity. Tariff the basis would reverse. solely on frequently revised and of schedules to accommodate tech-
necessity are drafted nothing There is
nological advancements. history legislative or its 1962 TSUS
in the limiting the definition of
that warrants power supplies
“rectifying apparatus”