No. 82-6 | C.C.P.A. | Jun 24, 1982
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States Court of International
OPINION
We agree with the more realistic concept of the common meaning of “protection” in item 685.90, TSUS used by the court below and with its conclusion that appellee’s imported goods do not provide that type of protection, i.e., protection of circuits from electrical overloads, surges, and other electrical faults during abnormal situations.
Even though the meanings of the terms “protection” and “connections” in item 685.90; TSUS may appear clear superficially, they contribute little to our understanding of whether Congress intended to include the imported goods under that item either as “other electrical apparatus * * * for protection of electrical circuits” or as “other electrical apparatus * * * for making connections to or in electrical circuits.” Thus the court below was proper in reviewing legislative history to determine the intended scope of item 685.90, TSUS. Nippon Kogaku (USA), Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA -, 673 F.2d 380" court="C.C.P.A." date_filed="1982-02-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nippon-kogaku-usa-inc-v-united-states-6824509?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6824509">673 F.2d 380 (1982).
After a thorough consideration of the record, briefs,
The briefs included one filed by Texas Instruments Incorporated as amicus curiae supporting the position of appellee.
Concurrence Opinion
with whom MILLER, Judge, joins, concurring.
I would agree with the majority to adopt the opinion of the Court of International Trade except for the lower court’s denomination of the Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Nomenclature (1955) as “legislative history,” which it viewed as controlling with respect to the intent of Congress in adopting the subject language. Rather, as the court below also stated, the Brussels Nomenclature is “an aid to interpreting” provisions of the TSUS where there is a “close similarity in the wording of the provisions.” United States v. Abbey Rents, 66 CCPA 2, 4, C.A.D. 1213, 585 F.2d 501" court="C.C.P.A." date_filed="1978-10-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-abbey-rents-6824404?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6824404">585 F.2d 501, 504 n.5 (1978) (Baldwin, J.). Characterization as “legislative history” was unnecessary and it appears to me that the court gave greater weight to that “aid” than I believe is appropriate although the result here is correct.