Opinion
No. 80-34.
March 5, 1981.
Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., David M. Cohen, Director, Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in charge, New York City, Susan Handler-Menahem, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Peter Jay Baskin, Gail T. Cumins, New York City, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States Customs Court (now the United States Court of International Trade), 83 Cust.Ct., C.D. 4855, 496 F. Supp. 1311 (1980), sustaining the appellee's claim that the imported merchandise in issue, known as a power failure light, was improperly classified as a flashlight under item 683.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) and was correctly classifiable as electrical articles, not specifically provided for, under item 688.40. We affirm.
The relevant TSUS provisions are as follows:
OPINION
We agree with the holding of the Court of International Trade that the imported power failure lights were incorrectly classified as "flashlights" and should be classified as "[e]lectrical articles * * * not specifically provided for." Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court and adopt the court's opinion as our own.
[Classified under:] Portable electric lamps with self-contained electrical source, and parts thereof: 683.70 Flashlights and parts thereof. . . . . . . . . . . . 35% ad val. [Claimed under:] 688.40 Electrical articles, and electrical parts of articles, not specifically provided for. . . . . . 5.5% ad val.