Case Name: Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States; Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1969-12-04
Citations: 57 C.C.P.A. 31
Docket Number: No. 5324
Parties: Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States
Judges: Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and Jones, Judge, sitting by designation.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 31–43

Head Matter:
(418 F.2d 922)
Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States Maher-App & Co., et al. v. The United States
(No. 5324)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
December 4, 1969
Glad & Tuttle, attorneys of record, for appellant. Edward N. Glad, James J. Morrison, of counsel.
William D. Ruclcelshatls, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Frederick L. Ikenson for the United States.
[Oral argument October 6, 1969 by Mr. Glad and Mr. Ikenson]
Before Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Associate Judges, and Jones, Judge, sitting by designation.
C.A.D. 973.

Opinion:
Almond, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Maher-App & Co., et al., importers, appeal from the decision and judgment of the United States Customs Court overruling the eight consolidated protests against classification of the imported merchandise by the Collector of Customs for the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana. Involved in the protest are five and eight pound balls of henequen or sisal twine, described on the invoices as "binder twine,"' and assessed with the duty at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem under the provisions for cods and twines in paragraph 1005 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802. Appellants contend that the merchandise is .entitled to entry free of duty as binding twine under the provisions of paragraph 1622 of said Act, as modified by Public Law 82-219, 65 Stat. 655(1951).
The relevant statutory provisions are:
Paragraph 1005, supra:
Cords and twines (whether or not composed o£ three or more strands, each strand composed of two or more yarns), tarred or untarred, single or plied, wholly or in chief value of manila (abaca), sisal henequen, or other hard fiber_ 15% ad val.
Paragraph 1622,supra:
All binding twine, and twine chiefly used for baling hay, straw, and other fodder and bedding materials, manufactured from New Zealand hemp, henequen, manila, istle or Tampico fiber, sisal grass, or sunn, or a mixture of any two or more of them, of single ply and measuring not exceeding seven hundred and fifty feet to the pound_ Free
The issue calling for resolution here is whether the instant importation constitutes such twine as falls within the description "binding twine" within the purview of said paragraph 1622 or, aided by the attendant presumption, constitutes a commodity as classified under paragraph 1005(b) by the Collectors of Customs.
As noted by the court below, the question posed is by no means novel in the area of the construction and application of tariff legislation as evidenced by the deliverances of this and the Customs Court in such, cases as: United States v. Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc., 41 CCPA 95, C.A.D. 535 (1953); Bob Stone Cordage Co. v. United States, 51 CCPA 60, C.A.D. 838 (1964); Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc. v. United States, 72 Treas. Dec. 290, T.D. 49151 (1937); Independent Cordage Co., Inc. v. United States, 3 Cust. Ct. 157, C.D. 223 (1939); Alberto Vales v. United States, 9 Cust. Ct. 219, C.D. 698 (1942).
In the Geo. Wm. Ruef case this court noted the comprehensive sweep of paragraph 1622, holding that importations of baler twine approximating 200 feet to the pound and chiefly used for baling hay, came within the scope of the provision for "all binding twine." The decision indicated that paragraph 1622 would encompass all twine made from the material enumerated therein which did not. exceed the limitation of 750 feet to the pound and chiefly used in. the agricultural pursuit of tying grains or harvesting.
In the Bob Stone Cordage case this court affirmed the overruling; of a protest asserting that merchandise invoiced as "binder twine"' was such twine as was encompassed by paragraph 1622 on the principal ground of a failure to show that the uses of the importation-were chiefly agricultural. The court's decision was predicated on a combination of factors, succinctly and fairly analyzed, we think, in the lower court's opinion in the instant appeal as follows:
First, plaintiffs' witnesses testified that twine which fell more than 5 percent below 500 feet to the pound would not be acceptable as binder-twine. Second, reports from Government chemists that samples of the-merchandise in issue measured from 352 to 473 feet per pound were not disputed. Third, none of the witnesses could testify that the merchandise-in issue conformed to the acknowledged standard of 500 feet per pound, nor could they state that nonconforming twine would consciously be used' for binding purposes in farm operations. The court also was of the-opinion that the witnesses lacked familiarity with the disputed importation and that the testimony concerning other binder twine did not cover a geographical area broad enough to support a showing of chief use.
A vital deficiency from the standpoint of appellants' proof in. Bob Stone Cordage was a failure to correlatively adapt the testimony of its witnesses to the importation in issue which the record fairly indicated to be of a variety yielding less than 475 feet per pound and thus a class or kind other than standard binder twine.
The issues in Bob Stone Cordage bear striking similarity to those-which confront us here. There, as here, no samples of the imported merchandise were before the court, the exhibits were all illustrative- and no testimony was introduced that any of the goods imported actually went into agricultural use.
In the proceedings below in the instant case, plaintiffs introduced a formidable array of witnesses knowledgeable in their areas of' endeavors. It may well be said that theirs was a valiant effort to-meet the criteria of proof, lacking which proved fatal to plaintiffs-in Bob Stone Cordage. As noted by the court below, the testimony of these witnesses with regard to recognized binder twine was related, to four areas, viz., the events surrounding the classification of the-twine, its manufacture and physical characteristics, the merchandising process and the use of the twine.
V. J. Peuler who, as customs line examiner at the port of New Orleans, had advisorily classified the merchandise in six of the eight-consolidated protests herein was called for the purpose of adducing-those factors which induced him to deny duty-free status to the- items involved. As stated by the trial court, he "was unable to recall the details of these proceedings or to state to what extent the lengths per pound reported by the customs laboratory were determinative of his advisory classification."
A. E. Hodapp, chemist and chief of the Organic Division of the Customs Laboratory at blew Orleans, stated that samples of items invoiced as binder twine were analyzed under his supervision for weight, oil content, and length per pound. He stated that plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 1, 2, and 3 possessed certain characteristics •of twine that measured five hundred feet per pound. However, the reports of the laboratory attached to the invoices on the entries involved herein reveal that the lengths of the sampled balls ranged from 379 to 473 feet per pound.
It is pertinent to here point out that plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 1-5, inclusive, were simply representative of the general characteristics of that class of goods acknowledged as binder twine. 'They were not samples of the importation in issue nor was their length-weight ratio established.
Mixel J. Jacobo, foreign sales manager of an organization of Mexican cordage manufacturers, testified regarding the manufacture and physical characteristics of binder twine that it is single ply made of sisal or henoquen fiber, oiled, treated with rodent and insect repellent and that while the nature of the manufacturing .process made some fluctuations in the length-weight ratio unavoidable, it is nevertheless manufactured to yield 500 feet per pound and is understood to be 500 feet per pound. The testimony of the other trade witnesses generally coincided with that of Jacobo to the effect that when ordering binder twine it was expected and .supposed to yield approximately 500 feet per pound.
Plaintiffs' witnesses, nine in number, who were engaged in the importation and sale of binder twine were in substantial agreement regarding ordering and merchandising of twine. Those witnesses ordered the commodity with the understanding and expectation that they would receive twine which met the standard of 500 feet per pound and were of the view that a variation in length per pound greater than five percent would not satisfy normal agricultural requirements.
The record amply supports the conclusion that the importers of the twine in question never examined it. It simply entered the usual channels of commerce. None of them could testify that they had ever inspected the subject importation with the slightest degree of thoroughness. The record discloses that the instant twine was entered into the same commercial channels whether or not it was accorded duty free status. It was dispensed to twine wholesalers* large retailers, farm implement and feed dealers and farmer organizations. The record is replete with testimony relating to the end use of twine dispensed to those channels. The witnesses connected with its importation and sale agreed that it was used on the farm for binding and tying grains. Their statements were predicated on the fact that the outlet channels were such as supplied the needs of farmers or on personal observation of binding twine in use in roto balers during the course of their business travels. The witness DehTeal, for example, testified that he saw binder twine in use in a number of Midwestern states and that it resembled plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 1 through 5, and that he knew of no use, other than agricultural, for such twine. The witness further stated that the measurement of twine that he had been familiar with as binder twine is 500 to 600 feet per pound.
The witness Edmund D. Stone testified that he was familiar with the use of binder twine similar to plaintiffs' illustrative exhibits 1 to 5 on his own and neighboring farms. He had seen it in use in the South and Midwest. He also stated that the binder twine in which he dealt was understood to yield 500 feet to the pound.
We find that the record supports the trial court's summary that the testimony of the remaining witnesses was in similar vein in the observation that:
Their familiarity with the use of binder twine was a result of their supervising its sale to wholesalers, distributors, and farm supply houses in various sections of the country. The twine they sold, to the best of their knowledge, fulfilled the expected length-weight ratio of 500 feet per pound in addition to possessing the other enumerated physical characteristics. As stated previously, however, none of the witnesses could testify that they had ascertained the length per pound of the instant twine or that they had seen the instant twine in use on farms.
We have made a searching and careful review of the record and find abundant support for the comments made by the court below and the conclusions reached as to the evidence adduced by the appellants. The Customs Court stated:
plaintiffs have marshaled an abundance of proof relating to binder twine in what can best be described as its commercially acceptable form. In this form, the twine is expected to possess certain physical qualities,, among which is the requirement that it measure 500 feet per pound. The testimony reveals that this characteristic is expected by the importers, sellers, and ultimate users and is the standard aimed for by the manufacturer. Consequently, it appears that the requisite yield of twine per pound is a major characteristic of binder twine as a class, absent which such twiDe will not be acceptable for the uses testified to by plaintiffs'' witnesses. In short, the proper length per pound is an indispensable identifying characteristic of the class of twine known as binder twine. In> light of this fact, the length of the instant twine becomes of central importance, not arising from the necessity of demonstrating that these particular shipments were used on the farm, but rather from the necessity of showing that the instant twine possesses those essential characteristics which the class possesses. In short, plaintiffs' failure of proof was in respect to showing that the instant twine belonged to the class of acknowledged binder twine, concerning which the witnesses possessed extensive knowledge.
Our assessment of the proofs submitted by the appellants is in harmony with the view expressed by the Customs Court that:
The only available proof concerning the length of the instant importations is contained in the customs laboratory report. It reveals that the samples measured less than 475 feet per pound. Accordingly, simply because the instant twine entered the same commercial channels as binder twine and aroused no complaints will not support an inference that it was of the required length for binder twine.
The court below could find no rational basis for distinguishing the instant case from the Bob Stone Cordage case, nor can we. The plaintiff there was confronted with the burden of proving that the imported twine, of an established length per pound less than 475 feet, was nevertheless, of the class of binder twine chiefly used in farming operations. This court held that it was not, stating that:
no witness concerned with the manufacture and distribution of the imported merchandise had any direct knowledge of its length per pound, or of the fact that any binder twine marketed in this country fell substantially below the acknowledged standard of 500 feet per pound. They acknowledged that it would not be economically practical for farmers to use twine substantially less than the standard length per pound in baling hay with roto balers. There was no proof that twine of the proven measurements of the imported merchandise had ever been used for binding purposes in farming operations.
The failure of requisite elements of proof in Bob Stone Cordage is repeated in striking and fatal aptness in the instant case. The witnesses here, as in Bob Stone Cordage were competent to discuss the class of binder twine and show its chief use, but the testimony fell short in support of the contention that the importation in issue was within the purview of that class.
We agree with the Customs Court that:
plaintiffs offered no proof that twine possessing the characteristics of the importation, particularly the deficient length per pound, was, nevertheless, chiefly used on the farm. The testimony, in fact, tends to support the opposite conclusion; that were its deficiencies of length known, the imported twine at issue would not be used as binder twine.
It is a well-established principle of customs law that the clas•sification of the imported merchandise assailed is invented with a presumption of correctness. To overcome this presumption, appel lants are charged with the burden of proving not only that the collector erred but also that the classification which they assert is correct.
On the basis of the record before ns and after consideration of the arguments and briefs of counsel, we are of the opinion that the decision and judgment of the Customs Court should be, and the same is, accordingly affirmed.
60 Cust. Ct. 470, C.D. 3429.