Opinion ID: 590027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dedication to a particular use

Text: 53 Defendant first argues the Court's application of United States v. Quality Marble and Granite Co., 48 CCPA 50, C.A.D. 763 (1960) is incorrect as a matter of law. According to defendant, the eo nomine provision for other hardboards, whether or not face finished, includes merchandise which, absent that provision, would fall into the residual provision for building boards not specially provided for. Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Rehearing, 7. Consequently, even if 100% of the merchandise were used as wall or ceiling covering, the eo nomine provision for hardboard prevails. 54 This argument is contrary to the decision in American Hardboard Ass'n v. United States, 12 CIT 714, 717, 1988 WL 84132 (1988), which held that hardboard is an input material commercially susceptible to a variety of uses. That holding is consistent with the Tariff Classification Study (TCS ) statement that [h]ardboard is used chiefly in construction, in cabinet and millwork, in furniture and fixtures, and other fabricated and industrial products.... 4 TCS at 67. As was the case in American Hardboard, if 100% of the material were employed as wall covering, it would not be susceptible to a variety of uses such as those listed in the TCS and would, therefore, not be classifiable as a form of hardboard. 55 Defendant next argues that unlike the situation in Quality Marble, the TSUS provisions at issue disclose a congressional intention that building boards made of hardboard be excluded from classification as building board. As evidence for this proposition, defendant cites the TCS which states: all fiber building boards (except hardboard and gypsum board ) are provided in item 245.90 ... [as building boards not specially provided for]. 4 TCS at 69 (emphasis added). From this, defendant asserts that hardboard building boards or gypsum building boards are specifically excluded from classification as building boards. Defendant's Memorandum at 8. 56 Defendant's argument ignores the effect of the Court's factual determination that the merchandise has been processed to the extent that it is no longer hardboard. While the merchandise is fiber building board, it cannot properly be said that the TCS specifically excludes it from classification under item 245.90, TSUS. Hardboard has a variety of uses; this merchandise does not. Consequently, it is classifiable with all other fiber building boards under item 245.90, TSUS. 57 Finally, defendant argues because the 10% alternative use of plaintiff's merchandise is not fugitive, this action is distinguishable from Quality Marble and A.P. Baldechi & Son v. United States, 56 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 963, 420 F.2d 756 (1969). Defendant's Memorandum at 11. Quality Marble does not state that other uses of the imported merchandise were fugitive. Baldechi was based on an application of Quality Marble and did not turn on whether alternative uses of the merchandise were fugitive. Accordingly, defendant's argument is unpersuasive. 58