exclusion, the involved mosaic not being a work of art, in a tariff sense,
is not ejusdem generis with "paintings in oil" and other articles men-
tioned eo nomine in said paragraph. United States v. Columbo Co.
(1930)--
The word "copies" in paragraph 1547 must be construed according
to its common meaning, and when so construed the mosaic representa-
tion cannot be said to be a copy of the painting "La Disputa." United
States v. Columbo Co. (1930) _ _ -
Certain articles of earthenware and china, claimed to be dutiable as
works of art under paragraph 1449, held dutiable as classified by the
collector under paragraphs 211 and 212, it being held that the presump-
tion attaching to the collector's classification had not been overcome.
United States v. A. Ackerman & Sons (1922) __ _
Article 423, Customs Regulations of 1923, as amended by T.D.
42299, requires that the name and address of the person from whom the
foreign seller acquired the imported articles, claimed free of duty under
paragraph 1708, should be given upon the invoice filed on entry. United
States v. Morris Friedman (1922).
The fact that the purchaser could not secure the information required
by the customs regulations because the seller declined to give it does
not obviate the necessity of compliance with such regulations. The
free importation of artistic antiquities is a privilege, to take advantage
of which the laws and regulations must be strictly complied with.
Citing Hinkle v. United States, 19 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 125, T.D. 45257.
United States v. Morris Friedman (1922)__
From a review of the evidence of record, it is held that the involved
articles (earthenware vases or jardinieres) are not shown to be works of
art. There being no showing that they are original paintings in oil or
colors, or that they are not articles of utility, the presumption of cor-
rectness of the collector's classification of the articles as decorated
earthenware has not been overcome. United States v. W. X. Huber Co.
(1922).