University of Miami v. United States

This is an appeal brought by the University of Miami from a decision of the Secretary of Commerce denying a duty exemption for an imported mass spectrometer ordered by appellant. The denial was based on the finding that the most closely related domestically produced mass spectrometer is equivalent to the imported apparatus in scientific value for appellant’s purposes.

*175The duty exemption is provided by the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Importation Act of 1966).1 Regulations 15 CFR 301.1, et seq., set forth guidelines for preparing an application for requisition of the duty exemption. The Secretary of Commerce has the authority2 to deny or to grant the exemption upon a finding of equivalency or nonequivalency of scientific value between or among domestic and foreign produced instruments which are circumscribed by the Importation Act of 1966. In accordance with the statute, the Secretary of Commerce has delegated his authority over this matter to the Director of the Office of Import Programs.3 The decision on the appellant’s application was made within the Office of Import Programs by the Director of Special Import Programs Division (Director). In the case at hand, advice was given to the Director by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Instruments Shops Division (within the Department of Commerce).

Statement of Facts

On December 5, 1974, appellant filed an application4 for duty-free entry under theTmportation Act of 1966 for a VG-Micromass 602C mass spectrometer imported from England. Dr. Cesare Emiliani, Chairman of the Geology Department, stated in the application that the apparatus would be used to test deep-sea cores by the oxygen isotopic method of paleotemperature analysis. The specific testing is-directed to the understanding of climatic evolution. The apparatus is-also used to train students. Dr. Emiliani listed several pertinent specifications, among them,5 an all-metal inlet system. The most *176closely related domestically produced mass spectrometer is tbe 6-60-RMS or tbe 3-60-KMS produced by Nucbde Corporation.6 Notice of tbe application was pubbsbed in tbe Federal Register.7 On February. 28, 1975, after tbe pubbcation of tbe notice, Nucbde Corporation sent its comments to tbe Department of Commerce. Tbe comments controverted statements in tbe application about tbe pertinent features.

On April 18, 1975, NBS, Instruments Shops Division notified tbe Director by written report, wbicb be bad requested, that tbe information of tbe Miami application was insufficient to permit findings of “pertinent specifications” and equivalent scientific value. Tbe Director, on May 13, 1975, deified appellant’s appbcation without 'prejudice to resubmit. In bis memorandum to appellant, tbe Director discussed tbe recommendation of NBS and tbe contentions made by Nucbde Corporation.

On August 7, 1975, appebant resubmitted tbe application wbicb made tbe ab-metal inlet system tbe “most crucial” factor witb regard to equivalency of scientific value. Tbe same procedures were fobowed for tbe reapplication 8 as for tbe first application. Botb Nucbde Corporation and NBS submitted comments. Instruments Shop Division of NBS found that, at tbe time appebant ordered tbe mass spectrometer, a completely “bakeable inlet system” was an option offered by Nucbde Corporation. Tbe denial, issued on October 4, 1976, concluded that tbe 6-60-RMS was of equivalent scientific value to tbe foreign apparatus for appebant’s purposes.

OPINION

Pursuant to 28 USC 1544 (1970),9 our review of this type of appeal from tbe Commerce Department is restricted to questions of law only. We have construed this statute to limit our review to a determination of whether tbe administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence.10 Botb parties address this issue while arguing tbe facts.

Appellee argued in its brief that appebant has limited tbe comparison to one pertinent specification, that being tbe ab-metal inlet system. Appebant’s reappbcation states: “There are other areas in *177which the VG-Micromass 602C is superior to the Nuclide instruments. However, I consider the inlet system the most crucial.” Nonetheless, considering all the pertinent features that appellant listed in both of the applications, there is substantial evidence found in the material submitted by the Nuclide Corporation in (1) its memorandum and in (2) the Nuclide Product Bulletin which discusses the specification of the 3-60-RMS as compared with the 6-60-RMS. The significant points made by the evidence are best summarized in the first denial dated May 13, 1975, from the Director of Special Import Programs Division:

(a) An all metal inlet system has been available from Nuclide since about 1960.

(b) A permanent magnet from Nuclide is offered at a reduced price. The first such magnet was built before 1960.

(c) An all metal Bakeable inlet is available from Nuclide.

(d) A standard option for Nuclide’s standard dual inlet system for RMS instruments, to facilitate small sample (0.025 atm cm3) analysis; has been offered for 10 years.

(e) Instruments offered by Nuclide will equal or exceed the article in respect to reproducibility.

Having reviewed all of the evidence in our consideration of the issue at hand, we conclude that the Department of Commerce denial of the duty exemption for appellant’s imported mass spectrometer is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We affirm the decision below.