Opinion ID: 444479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: 2 The principal issue before this court is whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in holding that certain imported speedometers of a bicycle-type, used primarily on exercisers, are bicycle speedometers within the meaning of item 711.93, Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), 1 rather than other speedometers under TSUS 711.98. A secondary issue is whether the trial court clearly erred regarding certain factual findings concerning the description and use of the subject speedometers.Background 3 Appellee Stewart-Warner Corporation (Stewart-Warner) is an American manufacturer of the subject speedometers and is seeking reclassification, on a prospective basis, of competing imported merchandise. 2 The judge below referred to this as a rare event in his court. We observe that the Government's prosecuting an appeal in this court that will reduce the rate of duty must be equally as rare. 4 The importer of the challenged entry is not a party to this action, but another importer, Diversified Products Corporation, has participated as amicus curiae. When the product entered this country the Customs Service classified it under TSUS 711.98, other, a basket category covering certain revolution counters and similar items with a 1984 duty of 1.9 percent ad valorem for such products from most countries, as opposed to classifying it under TSUS 711.93, bicycle speedometers and parts thereof, which carries a 1984 duty of 20.9 percent ad valorem for such items from most countries. 3 The lower court, after a 3-day trial on the issue, held against the Customs Service's classification and in favor of Stewart-Warner's position that the product should be classified under the higher-duty bicycle speedometer provision, because that provision encompasses bicycle-type speedometers, including those primarily used on exercisers. The Government has appealed here. 5 Regarding the product itself, we refer to it hereafter as the double-gear hub drive speedometer (double-gear speedometer), as have all the parties and the lower court. We set forth below precisely the factual description of the product as found by the trial court: 4 6 [T]he speedometers which are the subject of this action had not been invented at the time the new TSUS provision for bicycle speedometers was enacted in 1965. In the early 1970's, however, in response to a growing demand for a speedometer which could be mounted on the left side of either a bicycle or an exerciser, the Japanese developed the double-gear hub drive speedometer--the subject of the present action. 7 The advantage of the double-gear hub drive speedometer vis-a-vis its single-gear counterpart is its capacity to give a clockwise speed indicator readout when mounted on the left side of a wheel. The single-gear speedometer can only give a clockwise readout when mounted on the right side of a wheel. Since, as a practical matter, the design of exercise cycles precludes mounting a speedometer on the right side of the wheel, the double-gear hub drive speedometer has been used primarily in conjunction with exercisers, though it is perfectly suited for use on bicycles. Indeed, in all respects save one, this speedometer is physically identical with a single-gear bicycle speedometer, the one difference being that the former has the additional gear which permits it to function in a clockwise manner when mounted on the left side of a wheel. [Emphasis supplied.] 8 Stewart-Warner, which urges that this court affirm the lower court's holding that the double-gear speedometers are properly classified as bicycle speedometers, nevertheless alleges error in a number of that court's factual findings. Hence we discuss further the facts involving the product's description and use as found by the trial court.