681 F.2d 785 | C.C.P.A. | 1982
Lead Opinion
Appeal from the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade, 2 CIT 84, 525 F. Supp. 1244 (1981), dismissing importer's action challenging the classification of certain electronic and amplifier packs. We affirm.
We agree with the decision of the Court of International Trade that the imported electronic and amplifier packs were correctly classified in TSUS, items 685.23 and 684.70, respectively. Accordingly, we affirm, the judgment below and adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own.
The relevant provisions of the Tariff Schedules of The United States (TSUS) are:
General interpretative rule 10(h)
unless the context requires otherwise, a tariff description for an article covers such article, whether assembled or not assembled, and whether finished or not finished;
Schedule 6, Part 5
Radiotelegraphic and radiotelephonic transmission and reception apparatus; radiobroadcasting and television transmission and reception apparatus, and parts thereof.
*167 Other [than television apparatus and parts thereof]:
[Electronic packs 685.23 Solid-state (tubeless) radio receivers. 10.4% ad val. classified].
[Electronic packs 685.25 Other. 6% ad val. claimed].
[Amplifier packs 684.70 Microphones; loudspeakers; headphones; audio frequency 7.5% ad val. classified]. electric amplifiers; electric sound amplifier sets comprised of the foregoing components; and parts of the foregoing articles (including microphone stands).
[Amplifier packs 685.32 Record players, phonographs, record changers, turn 5.5% ad val. claimed]. tables, and tone arms, and parts of the foregoing.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I do not believe this court should adopt the opinion of the Court of International Trade as its own for the reason that said opinion inadequately disposes of the parties’ vigorous argument over application of this court’s opinion in Daisy-Heddon v. United States, 66 CCPA 97, C.A.D. 1228, 600 F. 2d 799 (1979). In that opinion, the court expressly overruled the majority opinion in Authentic Furniture Products, Inc. v. United States, 61 CCPA 5, C.A.D. 1109, 486 F. 2d 1062 (1973), and emphasized that the presence or absence of an “essential” part is not decisive of whether an importation is a substantially complete article.
Here, the opinion of the Court of International Trade simply states that the record supports the Government’s contention that the importations are substantially complete radio receivers, prompting appellant to argue that components added after importation are “significant” to the overall function of the complete radio receivers.
In Daisy-Heddon, one of the factors specified (for determining whether imported merchandise is substantially complete) is “the significance of the omitted parts to the overall functioning of the completed article.”
