## Facts

- An importer brought in automobile superchargers intended to increase engine power.
- Automobiles could be manufactured and operated without superchargers, but installing the imported superchargers required significant alterations to the engine and related components.
- After installation and alteration, the modified automobile would not operate properly without the supercharger.
- U.S. Customs classified the superchargers as “machines not specifically provided for” under paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
- The importer protested, claiming the superchargers were “parts for automobiles” under paragraph 369(c).
- The Customs Court reclassified the goods as automobile parts, and the United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether superchargers imported for post-manufacture installation on automobiles are “parts for automobiles” under paragraph 369(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or “machines not specifically provided for” under paragraph 372.
2. Whether an item can qualify as a tariff “part” when the host automobile, as originally manufactured, can operate without it, but the automobile as modified for intended use cannot.

## Decision

- The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed the Customs Court.
- The court held the superchargers were properly classified as “parts for automobiles” under paragraph 369(c), not as residual “machines” under paragraph 372.
- The court treated the superchargers’ dedicated automotive design and their functional necessity to the modified vehicle’s operation as controlling, notwithstanding that unmodified automobiles could operate without them.

## Legal Principles

- For tariff purposes, a “part” includes a component dedicated solely or principally to a particular article and necessary to that article’s completion or operation in its intended condition of use.
- The host article’s ability to function without the component at the time of importation is not dispositive where the imported item is intended to be integrated and is necessary to the functioning of the article as modified.
- Classification should avoid arbitrary distinctions based solely on whether the component is installed during manufacture or imported separately for later installation when the articles are functionally the same after assembly.

## Conclusion

The court sustained classification of automobile superchargers as automobile “parts” because they were designed principally for automotive use and, once installed as intended, became necessary to the modified vehicle’s operation, making time-of-importation operability of unmodified automobiles insufficient to deny parts status.


United States v. Pompeo, 43 C.C.P.A. 9 (C.C.P.A. 1955)