Court Opinion

ID: 9486789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:00:11.101465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:56.185553
License: Public Domain

PLAGER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I regret that I am unable to join my colleagues in their determination that something that looks like a bolt, works like a bolt, and is sold for the purpose of bolting things together, is nevertheless not a bolt, but a stud. The duck test — if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck — is the applicable test here.
The majority, rather than independently analyzing the matter, chooses to base their decision on the opinion of the Court of International Trade. With all due respect, that opinion is a testament to the triumph of formalism over common sense. In 19 pages of quotations from dictionaries, all conflicting, and references to burdens of proof, the court gives up making any sense of the case and simply holds for the Government.
The problem is not that difficult. Congress cataloged all imaginable things, including metal fasteners, in the tariff schedules. For reasons that may be better left unknown, or at least unexplained, the tariff schedule taxes “bolts and their nuts” at 0.7%, but “studs” at 4.7%. It defines neither, but it is worth noting that bolts and nuts are mentioned together, while studs are not listed with nuts. The Government for obvious reasons prefers everything to be a stud; our job is to decide what is what, using common understandings (absent Congressional direction to the contrary).
The items in controversy are individual threaded metal rods, of various sizes from tiny to really big. They have a nut on one end; on the other end, instead of the traditional fixed head, there is another turnable nut. A clever idea, since in bolting something together with this item you can tighten from either end without torquing (i.e., having to turn) the rod itself. Any home mechanic will immediately get the idea. Indeed, many home mechanics probably have them in hand, since they are now commonly available in hardware stores.
Most of us are also familiar with studs, in the fastener sense. They are typically made from metal rod, sometimes with opposed threads at each end. One end is screwed or driven into a solid material, like a board or wall. To the other end is fastened something, sometimes with a wing nut or other type fastener. Look around, they are ubiquitous. The most characteristic aspect of studs is that they are usually employed as fixed protuberances, hence “tire studs” and similar names.1
In this ease the specific use to be made of the items at issue, to which the Government agreed by stipulation, is bolting together adjacent flanges attached to the ends of large pipe sections. Maj. op. at 1395-96. Did anyone ever hear of studding something together? Customs itself recognizes the distinction. The Service has issued from time to time opinion letters advising how to distinguish one from the other. Following is a sample of record:
A stud is a type of bolt, but is distinguished from “bolts” by its application. That is, a stud is usually anchored and provides a projection to which something may be fastened.
Customs Service Headquarters Ruling (HQ) 087977, dated December 5, 1990 (citing HQ 074004, dated April 8, 1986); see also HQ 089009, dated July 9, 1991. Even if Customs does not read its own correspondence, this court should. At the least we should mandate that Customs’ rulings be hung on the wall of the office responsible for initially *1397making this decision — I would suggest, however, not using a bolt.

. E.g., "stallions kept for breeding," Websters Third New International Dictionary.