Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

or the cost of placing the color thereon. It is conceded by the importing company that these mats are bought and sold as splash mats, and they are commonly known in the trade as such. They are unquestionably articles of utility, being used either as a protection to the wall behind a washstand, or as receptacles for newspapers when doubled in pocket form. The evidence before us is that the coloring on the mats, which is in oil, is mainly placed thereon' by the stenciling process, and in some instances the figures are touched up with a brush by hand. We do not think that articles such as these mats, of such insignificant value and decorated in such a crude, cheap way, rise to the dignity of paintings. It is manifest that it requires no artistic skill to place the decorations upon them.

Our attention is directed to a decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. China & Japan Trading Co., Limited, 58 Fed., 690, 7 0. C. A. 433, wherein certain Japanese wall decorations made of paper, or of paper and cotton, or of narrow strips of bamboo joined together with a cotton cord, and upon which représentations of flowers, birds, or human figures were paiuted in water colors, a large part of the color being applied by stenciling, while the features of the work, which were delicate and ornamental and gave character to the article, were placed thereon by hand, were held to be paintings, in oil or water colors; but we think there is a marked difference between the issue here involved and that which was before the court in the case cited. The court said, among other things: "The articles were made for the purpose of hanging upon the wall of a room, and were not intended to be objects of utility, but to be merely decorative. . *

In our opinion, the samples are by far the most important part of the testimony, and show that while the large bodies of color may have been applied by stenciling, the features of the work, which are delicate and ornamental and which give character to the article, were added by hand."

Here there is no question that the mats in question are not articles of utility, but merely decorative. On the contrary, it appears that their general use is as articles of utility ; nor does it appear that the features of the work as the result of the appliance of the brush by hand, nor any part of the work on the mats, is delicate and ornamental. The question involved is very similar to that before the board in T. D. 21,406 (G. A. 4,492), wherein certain mats and covers similarly made for similar use were held to be manufactures of wood.

Our conclusion is the same in this case, and we overrule the protest, and affirm the collector's decision.

Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for importers. 1. D. Frank Llovd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

HAZEL, District Judge. The articles in question consist of wood strips joined or sewn together and known in trade as splash mats or screens. They were correctly assessed for duty by the collector at 35 per cent. ad valorem as manufactures of wood, under paragraph 208 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule D, 30 Stat. 168 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1617). The articles are not paintings, as claimed by the importers, even though pictures or landscapes appear thereon. The testimony shows that the outlines of the pictures are first stenciled and then painted by hand; but the mats or screens are articles of utility, and the decorative or coloring feature is secondary. As a precedent for holding that the articles in fact are dutiable' as "paintings" under paragraph 454 of said act, the importers cited United States v. China & Japan Trading Co., Limited, 58 Fed. 690, 7 C. C. A. 433. In that case the articles were wall decorations and were not "objects of utility."

The decision of the board is affirmed.

KRESHOWER v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 8, 1907.)

No. 4,088.

USTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-ORNAMENTAL LEAVES-PREPARED LEAVES -WREATHS.

Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule y, par. 425, 30 Stat. 191 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1675), relating to artificial or ornamental leaves, held to include leaves elaborately prepared so as to restore their natural appearance and prevent decomposition; also to include them when made up into wreaths and attached to wire frames. SAME-"MANUFACTURE"-PRESERVATION OF LEAVES.

As to palm leaves which have been subjected to processes that restore their natural appearance and prevent decay, and some of which have been arranged in wreaths on wire frames, held that, as there had been no advance in manufacture that destroyed the original articles or made them useful for other purposes or altered their trade designation, they still remained dutiable as "leaves," under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 425, 30 Stat. 191 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1675), rather than as “manufactures" of palm leaf, provided for in paragraph 450, 30

Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678]. On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.

The decision below affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on goods imported by L. J. Kreshower; the Board of General Appraisers following a former decision reported as G. A. 5,800 (T. D. 25,630).

Comstock & Washburn (J. Stuart Tompkins, of counsel), for importer

J. Osgood Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty.

HAZEL, District Judge. The articles in question, consisting of cycas palm leaves and of wreaths made of such leaves, were assessed for duty at 50 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 425 of the present tariff act (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 191 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1675]), which includes artificial or ornamental leaves, flowers, and stems of whatever material composed, not specially provided for. The protest states that the leaves and wreaths are dutiable at 30 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 449, which includes manufactures of palm leaf or of which the same is the component material of chief value, or, in the alternative, at 20 per cent. ad valorem under section 6, as nonenumerated manufactured articles. The importers contend that the leaves and wreaths, having passed beyond the condition of mere leaves, are not properly dutiable as artificial or ornamental leaves. The proofs show that the natural leaves are first dried, then boiled in a solution of glycerin, and after again being dried are varnished; the purpose being to restore their natural appearance and prevent decomposition. The single question is whether the articles are more specifically described in the paragraph under which the importers claim they are dutiable, or whether the classification of the collector was correct. It seems to me that, as the object of the treatment of the leaves was to prevent decomposition and to retain or restore their

/

original appearance, they are more appropriately included in the category of artificial or ornamental leaves, and cannot be classed as an article of manufacture. The wreaths of leaves, it is true, were made in part of metal; that is, the leaves were suitably attached to a circular thin wire frame. The collection of leaves in a wreath was not a transformation or alteration of them, and the wire attachment certainly was not a component part of the wreath, but it seems to have been merely an incidental part thereof. No new branches or parts were added. The treatment did not result in a change of the leaves from their former appearance. There was no advance in manufacture in the sense that the process of preservation destroyed the original articles or made them useful for other purposes or altered their trade designation. Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U. S. 609, 7 Sup. Ct. 1240, 30 L. Ed. 1012.

In the cases of In re Sheldon, G. A. 4,247 (T. D. 19,982), and G. A. 4,560 (T. D. 21,625), which counsel for the importer points out were followed by the Circuit Court in the cases of G. W. Sheldon & Co. v. United States, No. 3,364 (T. D. 26,101), and No. 3,281 (T. D. 26,462), single palm leaves that had been chemically treated were held to be dutiable under paragraph 449 as manufactures of palm leaf, but the question as to whether such articles were dutiable under paragraph 425 was not presented or considered in those cases.

The principle of De Jonge v. Magone, 159 U. S. 562, 16 Sup. Ct. 119, 40 L. Ed. 260, is not inapplicable, and therefore the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

SAHADI BROS. y. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, . D. New York. December 14, 1906.)

No. 4,218.

CUSTOMS DUTIES–CLASSIFICATION—"GHEE."

"Ghee" is within the provision for "butter, and substitutes therefor," in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 236, 30 Stat. 170 [U.

S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649). On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.

For decision below, see G. A. 6,307 (T. D. 27,180), in which the Board of General Appraisers affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York,

The opinion filed by the board reads as follow: WAITE, General Appraiser. The merchandise in question was imported from Beirut, Syria, and is an oily substance with a melting point of 75 degrees Fahrenheit, produced from the milk of sheep. It is invoiced as "salted butter," and is described by the importer in his testimony as “ghee.” The testimony also shows that "ghee" may be produced from either goats' or cows milk as well. The collector assessed duty upon the article at 6 cents per pound under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 236, 30 Stat. 170 [U, S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649), providing for "butter, and substitutes therefor." It is claimed to be dutiable as "tallow," at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound, under påragraph 279; at 2 cents per pound as "lard," under paragraph 277;

3, covering chemical compounds, etc., or under section 6 as

manufactured article. is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica (9th Ed.) vol. ter is the fatty portion of the milk of mammalian animals. nammals contains such fatty constituents; and butter from s, sheep, and other animals has been, and may be used; but ows' milk is the most savory, and it alone really constitutes mmerce." “Ghee” is defined by the Standard Dictionary as r clarified by boiling or heating and skimming or strainnes a liquid or semisolid oil, capable of being kept for many ed in India, in cookery and medicines, and in religious rites." nk the article can be said to be tallow, which is usually comand less fusible animal fats, nor lard, which is made from it is not a chemical compound within the meaning of paraclear for argument. If it be assumed that the article is neitallow, nor lard of commerce, we think it must be found that! tter more closely, and in more particulars than either of the s, and that this resemblance in material, quality and use is stantial to make operative the provisions of the similitude d in section 7 of the act. The testimony, it is true, shows

is used for cooking, as is lard and some other vegetable and fats. But in this regard it also resembles butter, in so far as ed. An analysis of the commodity shows, however, that it remost closely in its component elements or material; and this | by the description given in the testimony of its origin and proacture. It appears to be composed of the fatty portion of the and it would seem that it might be described with aptness as atter. We are of the opinion that it is dutiable by similitude, if t the rate prescribed by paragraph 236. is overruled, and the collector's decision affirmed. & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for

Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

District Judge. The merchandise involved in this appeal d as "salted butter" and is described by the importer in ny as "ghee.” The collector assessed duty upon the mer- 6 cents per pound as “butter, and substitutes therefor," ff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 236, 30 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649]. It is claimed by the imis protest to be dutiable at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound ” or at 2 cents per pound as “lard” under paragraphs 279 espectively, of said act, or at 20 per cent. as a nonenumerated red article under section 6 of the same act. On the trial

counsel abandoned his claims under paragraphs 277 and relied only upon the provisions of section 6. there is a substantial similarity between the article in question r of commerce. I have considered the evidence as well as the endered by the Board of Appraisers, with which I concur. cision of the Board of Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. C. NEWMAN WIRE CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 28, 1907.)

No. 4,130. CUSTOMS DUTIES—CLASSIFICATION-STEEL PLATES--DRAWPLATES-WORTLES.

Drawplates and wortles, which are practically completed articles manufactured from steel bars or plates and having a purpose distinct from that of the original product, are not within the provision for plates in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 135, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638], relating to "plates and steel in all forms and shapes." This provision was not intended to include plates manufactured

into some other completed article. On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.

For decision below, see G. A. 6,157 (T. D. 26,731), reversing the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

J. Osgood Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Everit Brown, for importers.

part of *

HAZEL, District Judge. The merchandise in question, consisting of draw plates and wortles, was returned by the appraiser as manufactures of metal. Duty was accordingly assessed thereon by the collector at 45 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 193 of the tariff act approved July 24, 1897 (chapter 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 16+51), which provides for "articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in

steel.” The importers protested, urging before the Board, among other things, that the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 135 as plates or steel in all forms and shapes. The Board overruled the classification of the collector and held the merchandise dutiable, as claimed, under paragraph 135, upon the authorities of Buehne y. United States (C. C.) 140 Fed. 772, Morris v. United States (C. C.) 140 Fed. 774, and the ruling of the Board in F. L. Schmidt & Co., G. A. 5,682 (T. D. 25,296). The government has appealed to this court for a review of the decision of the Board.

The single claim now urged by the importers is that the articles are dutiable under paragraph 135, as steel plates, at the rate per pound therein specified; the earlier claim urged before the Board, that the drawplates and wortles relate to steel "in all forms or shapes," having been abandoned. The government contends that the drawplates and wortles are manufactured from bars of steel, that the term “plate" as applied to the article is a misnomer; it having originated in shop phraseology, and particularly that paragraph 135 contemplates the payment of a duty upon steel in its crude and unfinished forms and shapes only, and not upon finished articles manufactured therefrom.

The evidence before this court shows that the merchandise in question is manufactured from steel bars; that a drawplate used in making steel wire ordinarily consists of a piece of steel about 6 inches wide, 10 or 12 inches long, and 1} inches thick, one of the ends being elongated or drawn out to form a handle; and a series of holes correspons

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »