Court Opinion

ID: 9455720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:31:12.623511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:42.552264
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge
(concurring).
Rarely has a record shed so little light on Congressional intent, always of paramount importance, as here. Of some comfort, however, are two helpful, albeit divided, opinions from the Customs Court. Both endeavor, largely from prior judicial decisions, to ascertain what Congress intended in this case of first impression.
The majority opinion of Chief Judge Rao, joined by Judge Ford, reflects a careful and detailed analysis of decisions of this and other courts and their possible applicability to the instant facts. Unhappily, however, none appears to be sufficiently in point to be controlling.
The dissenting opinion of Judge Newman also reflects a careful analysis of decisions relied on to support that position. Again, however, I find no decision expressly controlling of the facts here.
At first blush it does seem, as the dissent notes, that the uses and value of *823the instant blocks would preclude their classification as “waste” in the usually accepted sense. However, the books abound with decisions reflecting some unexpected distinctions between so-called “common” sense and “tariff” sense.
On balance, it seems the decisions relied on by the majority regarding Congressional intent tip the scales in favor of the importer. I trust that conclusion has not been influenced by my high esteem, engendered over the past twenty years, for Chief Judge Rao and Judge Ford, whose combined tenure on the court total over 40 years of distinguished service. If the majority below, and we here, have erred in our efforts to determine Congressional intent, it is for that body to correct us.