Court Opinion

ID: 9455074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:10:04.033159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:26.465240
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge Rich. I add that it is my belief that the evidence as to a commercial expectation of a given footage range should not be considered at all in this case. The Tariff Act provision, paragraph 1622, has fixed the footage limits as “not exceeding seven hundred and fifty feet to the pound.” Since Congress has thus expressly spoken on length per pound, I find it inappropriate for a court to ground its decision even in part on evidence tending to show a lower limit that would be commercially acceptable. I do not say that evidence of a lower footage is totally irrelevant in all cases under this provision. Such evidence might show in a given case that the twine, due to its thickness, cannot be used for binding or baling as required by the statutory paragraph in issue. Such a situation is clearly not present here. The evidence clearly shows a binding or baling use for the imported merchandise. The footage evidence does not negate that fact and has no proper relevance in this case. To give the footage evidence any weight, as the opinions of Judge Almond and Judge Baldwin have done, is to allow commercial expectations to eliminate two-thirds of the scope of the provision given us expressly by Congress.