Court Opinion

ID: 9455201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:14:13.357645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:29.996960
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting, with whom BALDWIN, Judge, joins.
I agree with the importer that the language “used in the manufacture of sugar," appearing in paragraph 1604 of the 1930 Tariff Act, was intended to benefit that particular industry, and in a very broad sense could possibly embrace every type and kind of machinery directly, or indirectly, used in a sugar mill plant. However, had Congress intended such sweeping concessions it could have easily said so, but it did not, choosing rather to restrict free entry to that machinery used only in the manufacture of sugar.
I do not see where the instant crane, although obviously contributing to the ultimate production of sugar, is actually involved in the manufacture of sugar per se. The scales denied free entry in James were used after the manufacturing process was completed; the crane here, in my view, is used before the pro*754cess begins. I think the Customs Court properly followed the reasoning in the James decision, quoted by the majority, in dismissing the importer’s protest. I would affirm its judgment.