415 F. Supp. 375 | Cust. Ct. | 1976
Plaintiff seeks classification of its imported tents as sport equipment
Based on the testimony, I am persuaded that backpacking is a sport and that these tents are designed for use in the sport of backpacking so as to come within the meaning of the tariff term “sport equipment.”
I have concluded from the evidence that backpacking is the activity of traveling on foot in relatively wild areas and maintaining oneself with supplies and equipment carried on one’s back. This activity falls within, my understanding of the term “sport.” It possesses to a meaningful degree the same attributes of healthy, challenging and skillful recreation which characterize such acknowledged sports as scuba diving, skiing, horseback riding and mountain climbing.
I reject the government’s contention that a sport must involve competition either between individuals or against the natural elements;
From the testimony it is clear that the use of a shelter is a necessary and regular part of the prudent practice of backpacking, and the normal method of obtaining shelter while backpacking is to carry and utilize a specially designed, lightweight portable tent.
That these tents were specially designed for use in backpacking is not in doubt as is made plain by the testimony as to their- design and the emphasis placed on their lightness, compactness and ease of assembly.
Judgment will enter accordingly.
Itom 735.20 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as modified by T.D. 68-9, providing for duty at the rate of 12% ad valorem.
Item 389.60 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as modified by T.D. 68-9, providing for duty in the amount of 250 per pound, plus 18% ad valorem.
This final argument relies on material from the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature (1955) and the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1957). Since I detect no ambiguity in the term “sport equipment" there is no need to look for clues to legislative intent. Furthermore, I have strong doubts as to whether the language of the Brussels Nomenclature (Appliances, Apparatus, Accessories and Requisites for * * * Sports * * *) or the SICM (Sporting * * * Goods) is sufficiently similar to the term “sport equipment" to support any conclusions drawn from the former as to the scope of the latter.
On this essential point these tents are distinguished from the nets ■which were held not to bo golf equipment in Nichimen Co., Inc. v. United States, 72 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 4514 (1974). The nets bordering the areas in which golfers practice their sport wore not being used in the sport in anything approaching the sense in which these tents are used in backpacking.
Defendant’s argument that these tents lack the quality to be used in “serious” backpacking was not supported by the evidence and was not persuasive. I see no indication that sport equipment must be of a quality required by the most demanding practitioners of a sport or that these tenis are not of a sufficient quality to be used in the sport. Cf. New York Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United States, 62 Cust. Ct. 38, C.D. 3671, 294 F. Supp. 971 (1969).