Page images
PDF
EPUB

paragraph 1704 was sustained. Mosaic pictures having been held not to be works of art in Petry v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 525; T. D. 39666) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1707 was overruled as to them. graph 214 was also held to be inapplicable.

Para

No. 180.-Protest 106845-71407 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Entered VALUE.—The claim here is that the collector assessed duty on more than the entered and appraised value.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. The collector added a tax of 11⁄2 per cent, thereby increasing the appraised value. It was held that he should not have increased the appraised value. The protest was therefore sustained.

No. 181.-Protest 129657-G/72295 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

CLERICAL ERROR.-The claim here is that duty was assessed on an item of commission through clerical error.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. There was no proof as to the items claimed as commission except that on other occasions they had been passed by the appraiser. This was held not sufficient to establish the plaintiff's rights. The protest was therefore overruled.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, JULY 3, 1926

No. 182.-Claims 1046, etc., of S. J. Rohr & Co. et al. (New York). DAMAGED MERCHANDISE.-These applications are for abatement of duty on account of injury to merchandise by casualty.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. It was ordered that duty be abated in accordance with the reports of the appraising officer.

No. 183.-Claims 1091, etc., of William Goodacre & Sons, Ltd. (New York). DAMAGED MERCHANDISE.-It is claimed here that duty should be abated on merchandise injured by casualty.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J.

Abatement of duty was ordered to the extent of

50 per cent in each of these cases.

BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION, JULY 6, 1926

No. 184.-Protest 108775-G of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. (New York).

GOATSKINS.-Goatskins dressed and finished classified at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1431, tariff act of 1922, are claimed free of duty under paragraph 1606.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, J. The testimony showed that the leather in question is used in the manufacture of shoes, and that it has only been known for a comparatively short time. It was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1606. Abstracts 51478 and 48680 and G. A. 6263 (T. D. 26995) noted. No. 185.-Protest 106847-G of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago), protests 83521-G, etc., and 155410-G, etc., of Dent, Allcroft & Co. (Inc.) et al., and protests 1434-G, etc., of Goessling & Ferre, Inc. (New York).

EMBROIDERED GLOVES.-The question at issue here is whether certain leather gloves are subject to additional duty as embroidered or embellished under the provisions of paragraph 1433, tariff act of 1922.

Opinions by MCCLELLAND, J. On the authority of Mayer v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 390; T. D. 41321) the protests were sustained in part.

No. 186.-Protests 152517-G, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (New York) and protest 142905-G of J. S. Garrell, jr. (Philadelphia). SADDLERY.-These protests claim free entry under paragraph 1606, tariff act of 1922, for certain merchandise assessed at 35 per cent under paragraph 1436.

Opinions by MCCLELLAND, J. In accordance with stipulations of counsel and on the authority of Wyman v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 241; T. D. 41198) leather saddle girths, etc., were held free of duty under paragraph 1606.

No. 187.-Protest 129875-G of W. W. Burdine's Sons (Tampa).

LEATHER HAND BAGS.-Merchandise classified as fitted leather cases at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1432, tariff act of 1922, is claimed dutiable at only 30 per cent under the same paragraph.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, J. Leather handbags containing a mirror and a purse were held dutiable at 30 per cent under paragraph 1432. Abstract 50482, noted.

No. 188.-Protest 123932-G of V. E. Scott & Co. (San Francisco).

MAH JONG BOXES.--Wooden boxes classified at 33 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 410, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable as parts of mah jong sets at 25 per cent under paragraph 1439.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, J. The protest was sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel. Abstract 47837 followed.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, JULY 6, 1926

No. 189.—Protests 10354, etc., of Jules Racine & Co. et al. (New York).

STOP WATCHES-TIMERS.-These protests claim that certain stop watches or timers are dutiable as watch movements in cases at the applicable rates under paragraph 367, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by FISCHER, J. The protests were sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel. Didisheim v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 647; T. D.

41487) followed.

No. 190.-Protests 67426-G, etc., of Blair Miller Co. and protest 78094-G of B. Weinstein (New York).

EMBROIDERED ARTICLES.-The question here is at what rate under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, certain embroidered articles are dutiable.

Opinions by HOWELL, Ch. J. In accordance with stipulations of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384; T. D. 40544) the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430.

No. 191.-Protest 973703-64043 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

EMBROIDERED ARTICLES IN Part of BraiD.—Wearing apparel in chief value of wool, embroidered and containing some braid, classified at 90 per cent ad valorem, is claimed dutiable at 75 per cent under the provisions of paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. On the authority of Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530; T. D. 41396) the wearing apparel in question was held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.

No. 192.-Protest 973271-64217 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

DRAWNWORK DOILIES.-Linen doilies made in part of lace and ornamented with drawnwork or embroidery, classified at 90 per cent ad valorem, are claimed dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. The doilies in question were held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430 on the authority of G. A. 8684 (T. D. 39799), affirmed in United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384; T. D. 40544). No. 193.-Protest 112692-G of Frank P. Dow & Co., Inc. (Seattle).

SILK HANDKERCHIEFS, EMBROIDERED.-Silk handkerchiefs ornamented with drawnwork or embroidery, classified at 75 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable as silk handkerchiefs at 60 per cent under paragraph 1209.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. On the record presented the handkerchiefs in question were held properly classified at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430. United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384; T. D. 40544) noted.

No. 194. Protest 117480-G/72030 of Mandel Bros. (Chicago).

DOLLS IN PART OF LACE.-Fabric dolls made in part of lace, classified at 90 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable at 70 per cent under paragraph 1414.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. On the record presented the protest was overruled. G. A. 8910 (T. D. 40567) noted.

No. 195.-Protest 90775-G of Marne & Weill (New York).

GLOVES IN PART OF LACE.-Cotton gloves made in part of lace, which were classified at 90 per cent, are claimed dutiable at 75 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. It was stipulated that the gloves in question are made in part of lace and are ornamented with embroidery. On the authority of Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530; T. D. 41396) they were held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430.

No. 196.-Protest 25642-G of A. N. Khouri (New York).

HEMSTITCHED HANDKERCHIEFS ARMENIAN LACE.-Handkerchiefs imported from Syria, which are hemstitched and have an edging applied by knotting and looping thread to produce a triangle, known as Armenian lace, were classified at 90 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, and are claimed dutiable at 45 per cent under paragraph 1016.

Opinion by HoWELL, Ch. J. It appeared that the lace edging did not have a separate and distinct existence at the time it became a part of the handkerchiefs. Following the principle in G. A. 9076 (T. D. 41273) the court sustained the claim as hemstitched handkerchiefs under paragraph 1016.

No. 197.-Protests 26047-G/66606, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

EMBROIDERED ARTICLES.-The question here is whether embroidered articles made in part of lace are dutiable at 90 or 75 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1430.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. On the authority of Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530; T. D. 41396) the claim at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.

No. 198.-Protests 34573-G/66842, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

SILK TRIMMINGS.-Merchandise invoiced as rose flower trimmings, classified as silk trimmings at 90 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, is claimed dutiable under paragraph 1419 or 1211.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. On the appraiser's report that the merchandise is made of ribbon made into trimming by gathering at intervals, the product remotely resembling small buds, the protests were overruled.

No. 199. Protests 36515-G, etc., of Gimbel Bros. (New York).

SILK GARTERS.-Garters classified as silk wearing apparel at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1210, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable at 55 per cent under paragraph 1207.

Opinion by HoWELL, Ch. J.

Garters in chief value of silk were held dutiable

at 55 per cent under paragraph 1207 as claimed.

No. 200.-Protest 56215-G/67616 of Mandel Bros. (Chicago).

EMBROIDERED TRIMMINGS.-Merchandise invoiced as "metal guipure embroidery" was classified at 90 per cent ad valorem and is claimed dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. Embroidered trimmings were held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430 on the authority of United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384; T. D. 40544).

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, JULY 6, 1926

No. 201.-Protest 106903-G/63247 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago).
CLERICAL ERROR-SUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST.

ADAMSON, Associate Justice: This case is somewhat muddled and was not clarified on the hearing. It appears from the record that an entry was liquidated February 5, 1925. On March 2, 1925, the plaintiff wrote the collector making alternative requests. The first was that he reliquidate on account of errors specified therein, but making no allegation as to the time within which the errors were discovered, and the alternative request, in the event of a refusal to reliquidate on account of such clerical error, that certain corrections be made, at any rate, in the duties assessed. The only suggestion of a protest is that "in case of an adverse decision the importer wishes to refer the matter to the Treasury Department," and "we would like to be enabled to obtain the latter" decision (mentioning the Treasury Department), provided it developed the same should be necessary before the expiration of the protest period, which is April 6. An assistant collector of customs, March 5, acknowledged the communication and stated that "your communication will be treated as a formal protest under section 514 of the tariff law and reliquidation will be made under the protest as to the matters complained of." Apparently the collector did not do so, because of a different opinion rendered by the assistant controller of customs, who appeared from the writing not to understand the nature of the case, concluding with the following: "I would be willing to allow the deduction on both invoices as the importer has designated them nondutiable on invoices, as it appears that it was not his original intention to deduct them." He bases his dissent, however, on the statement, "there being no manifest clerical error."

The collector, in referring the case to this court misapprehended the character of the case entirely. He says, "The protest is against the assessment of duty as a result of an alleged manifest clerical error upon packing added again and nondutiable charges not deducted through error. This office will reliquidate, if so directed by the board." If that letter written by the plaintiff can be treated as a protest at all, which clearly he did not so intend, it can not be sustained, because the collector could not take duty on less than the entered value, and there is no allegation of manifest clerical error, nor does any appear from an examination of the invoice, entry, or classification. The new provision in section 514 is not invoked at all in this case. In order to invoke that the protest should have been filed subsequent to the refusal of the collector, alleging the facts and alleging his refusal, and filed within 60 days after such refusal. There is no such protest here, nor pretense of any. Therefore, we can do nothing on that line. So far as the letter referred to is concerned, if it is claimed as a protest at all, as suggested by the collector, it is hereby overruled.

No. 202.-Protest 92276-G of Western Sun Fertilizer Co. (Los Angeles).

TANKAGE.-Tankage classified as waste at 10 per cent ad valorem is claimed entitled to free entry as chiefly used for fertilizer.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J.-The evidence supporting the claim for free entry the protest was sustained.

No. 203.

Protests 990919, etc., of Adele Forwarding Co. et al. (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-OLIVE OIL IN TINS.-It is claimed here that olive oil in tins is not subject to additional duty as not legally marked. Opinion by ADAMSON, J. The protests were sustained.

No. 204.

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

JULY 7, 1926

SADDLERY.-Protest 143135-G/72848 of W. J. Wyman. Abstract 51983. Rehearing granted.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, JULY 7, 1926

No. 205.-Protests 997368, etc., of Bayer, Pretzfelder & Mills et al. (New York). STOP WATCHES-TIMERS.-Timers and stop watches classified under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable under paragraph 367.

Opinion by FISCHER, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Didisheim v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 647; T. D. 41487) the timers in question were held dutiable at the appropriate rates on the movements and cases, under paragraph 367.

No. 206.-Protests 980677, etc., of P. C. Kuyper & Co. (New York).

UPHOLSTERY FABRICS.-Upholstery fabrics classified at 55 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable at 40 per cent under paragraph 921 or at 45 per cent under paragraph 909.

Opinion by FISCHER, J. Certain items found to be Jacquard woven goods in chief value of cotton were held dutiable under paragraph 909 as claimed. No. 207. Protest 22403-G of Wm. H. Horstmann Co. (Philadelphia). METAL-THREAD CORD.-Metal-thread cord classified at 55 per cent ad valorem is claimed dutiable at 45 per cent under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1922. Opinion by FISCHER, J. Metal-thread cord was held dutiable at 45 per cent under paragraph 385.

No. 208.-Protests 56312-G/66791 and 63663-G/67714 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago), protest 998939 of Benziger Bros., protest 50109-G of H. A. Caesar & Co., and protest 998492 of Fo Sing Yuen & Co. (New York). EMBROIDERED ARTICLES.-Lingerie sachets, handkerchiefs, shawls, and slippers embroidered or in part of lace or braid, classified at 90 per cent are claimed dutiable at 75 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1430.

Opinions by HOWELL, Ch. J. Pustet v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530; T. D. 41396) followed holding similar articles dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430. Protests sustained in part.

No. 209.-Protest 56286-G/67601 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago), protest 53999-G of Mme. L. Thurn (New York), and protest 56844-G of Kaufmann Dept. Stores, Inc. (Pittsburgh).

EMBROIDERED ARTICLES.-Laces, dresses, and other articles classified at 90 per cent are claimed dutiable at only 75 per cent under the provisions of paragraph 1430.

Opinions by HoWELL, Ch. J. On the authority of United States v. Smith (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384; T. D. 40544), affirming G. A. 8684 (T. D. 39799), the laces, allovers, and dresses in question were held dutiable at 75 per cent under paragraph 1430.

« PreviousContinue »