Case Name: Barad Shaff Sales Company v. United States
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-05-11
Citations: 54 C.C.P.A. 96
Docket Number: No. 5261
Parties: Barad Shaff Sales Company v. United States
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, Rich, Smith, Almond, Associate Judges, and William H. Kirkpatrick
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 96–96

Head Matter:
Barad Shaff Sales Company v. United States
(No. 5261)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
May 11, 1967
John D. Bode (Ellsworth F. Qualey, of counsel) for appellant.
Barefoot Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Dominick M. Minerva for the United States.
[Oral argument April 3, 1967 by Mr. Qualey and Mr. Minerva]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, Rich, Smith, Almond, Associate Judges, and William H. Kirkpatrick
C.A.D. 915.
Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Smith, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Customs Court, Third Division, overruling the protest of the importer. The importation, known commercially as "Junes," is a mixture of "butterfat and sugar with a trace of vanilla" and is used in the manufacture of ice cream.
The importation comes within the scope of par. 1558, Tariff Act ,of 1930, as modified. The dispute is whether the importation is an "edible preparation for human consumption," dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, as classified, or whether manufactured articles, ms.p.f., dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem, as claimed.
The court below considered the issue presented to be governed by the decision of this court in United States v. P. John Hanrahan, Inc., 45 CCPA 120, C.A.D. 684. Here, as in Hanrahan, the importation cannot, as a practical matter, be eaten by itself but is added to other ingredients to make ice cream and high protein bread, respectively. Appellant here seeks to distinguish the principles stated in Hanrahan, arguing the importation is neither "edible" nor a "preparation."
We find no error in the lower court's application of the principles set forth in Hanrahan to the issue here. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the opinion below, reported at 56 Cust. Ct. 447, C.D. 2672, the judgment of the lower court is afirmed.