Court Opinion

ID: 9483484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:21:41.819671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:38.793719
License: Public Domain

NIES, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
This case involves sheet metal components manufactured by General Motors in the United States and shipped to Mexico where they and numerous other components were assembled into automobiles. Upon re-entry of the automobiles into the United States, General Motors sought to subtract the value of the sheet metal components made in the United States from the full value of the automobiles in calculating the duty owed for importing the automobiles under item 807.00, TSUS (1986). Item 807.00 permits such a duty allowance for components made here which:
(a) were exported in condition ready for assembly without further fabrication, (b) have not lost their physical identity ... by change in form, shape, or otherwise, and (c) have not been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad except by being assembled and except by operations incidental to the assembly process such as cleaning, lubricating, and painting.
Item 807.00. The United States Customs Service denied allowances for sheet metal components which had been subject to topcoat painting operations in Mexico. The Court of International Trade disagreed and held that topcoating components in Mexico did not negate the deduction of the value of these parts as United States components. I agree.
The only question presented on appeal is-whether the topcoated automobile components at issue have been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad by “operations incidental to the assembly process such as cleaning, lubricating, and painting.” Item 807.00(c) (emphasis added). At the government’s urging, the majority has looked to item 807.00’s legislative history and. the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals opinion in United States v. Mast Indus., 668 F.2d 501 (CCPA 1981), to require that the painting operations in this case be minor in nature as well as “incidental to the assembly process.”
Item 807.00(c) speaks of “operations incidental to the assembly process such as ... painting.” Looking to this seemingly unambiguous language, the proper inquiry in this case is whether the painting operations performed in Mexico were “incidental to the assembly process.” While the majority opinion states that painting is merely listed as “an exemplar of an operation which is potentially ‘incidental to the assembly process,’ ” item 807.00’s specific mention of painting is at minimum a strong indication that the type of painting in issue is the exact type of activity 807.00 was amended to allow.
The government and the majority opinion look to our predecessor court’s opinion in Mast as support for the requirement that the painting be “minor in nature.” The operations in Mast were buttonholing and pocket slitting performed on fabric, operations not specifically mentioned in 807.00. The court looked to 807.00’s legislative history in order to determine whether these operations were “incidental to the assembly process” under item 807.00(c). Such a resort to item 807.00’s legislative history is not necessary in the present case — the plain language of item 807.00 governs the proper inquiry. See United States v. *722Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2527, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981).
In any event, to the extent that it is necessary to look to legislative history in order to further illuminate this seemingly clear provision, 807.00’s legislative history explicitly names incidental painting as an operation which does not negate a duty allowance for imported components. In connection with amending 807.00 to allow the performance of certain value enhancing operations abroad, the legislative history states, “It appears that under the language of [pre-amendment] item 807.00 minor operations such as painting incidental to assembly abroad may be precluded, and that in certain respects the item is ambiguous, with the result that it imposes undue administrative burdens on customs officers.” H.R.Rep. No. 342, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 48 (1965) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1965, p. 3416 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that an operation must be minor in nature to allow a duty allowance, 807.00’s legislative history clearly implies, if not directly states, that painting which is incidental to assembly is inherently a minor operation.
If there is any doubt as to where the proper inquiry lies it is dispelled by close examination of the following factors used by the Mast court:1 (1) whether the cost of the operation relative to the cost of the affected component and the time required by the operation relative to the time required for assembly of the whole article were such that the operation may be considered minor; (2) whether the operations were necessary to the assembly process; (3) whether the operations were so related to assembly that they were logically performed during assembly; and (4) whether economic or other practical considerations dictate that the operations be performed concurrently with assembly. 668 F.2d at 506 & n. 7.
The first factor focuses solely on the extent of the operations, i.e., whether the operations are “minor in nature,” and forms the basis for the majority’s opinion.2 Concededly, an operation’s being minor in nature clearly impacts upon its being “incidental to the assembly process.” A very minor operation is likely to be incidental to the assembly process. This factor, however, does not stand alone as dispositive; it is to be combined with the other three Mast factors and any other relevant considerations in determining whether an operation fits within those allowed under 807.00(c). The remaining three factors in Mast focus on the relationship between the operation and the assembly process in order to determine to what extent the assembly process dictated that the operation be performed abroad with the assembly. I believe these three factors lie at the heart of the inquiry in the present case.
The government suggests that the sheet metal components could have been painted in the United States and assembled in Mexico by “a nut and bolt assembly”. This suggestion is so ludicrous I would have held the appeal frivolous. The process of nut and bolt automotive assembly became obsolete in the 1950’s with the advent of spot welding. General Motors has clearly established that the painting operations had to be performed during the assembly process in Mexico. The components could not be painted (either undercoated or top-coated) prior to shipment to Mexico because the parts were assembled through electrical welding and the non-conductive paint would have, therefore, prevented assembly. The components could not be undercoated after the complete car was assembled because all of the sheet metal components must be undercoated in order *723to prevent corrosion. Likewise, the sheet metal components could not be undercoated in Mexico and topcoated (a la Earl Schieb) after importation of the automobile because: (1) the windshields were attached by adhesives which bonded only to topcoat, (2) a delay in topcoating would increase ultra violet degradation of the undercoats, and (3) trim components would have to have been removed to paint all of the surfaces which need to be topcoated. The nature of the assembly process dictated that the painting operations be performed concurrently with the assembly of the car and, therefore, the painting operations conducted in Mexico were “incidental to the assembly process.” Because of the denial of the deduction for these United States components, another part of the fabrication of automobiles in the United States will likely be lost. This cannot be the intent of Congress. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of International Trade.

. It is interesting to note that, in addition to item 807.00’s plain language and legislative history, the judicial interpretation of 807.00 in Mast speaks of painting as an operation allowable under 807.00(c). 668 F.2d at 505.

. In addition to the "cost of the operation” and the "time required by the operation" elements under the first Mast factor, the majority looked to the amount of General Motor’s capital investment in the machinery and equipment in the paint shop. I fail to see how the purchase of expensive capital equipment for whatever reasons, i.e., to increase efficiency, to cut labor costs, or to reduce employee’s exposure to unsafe working conditions, changes the nature of the operation.