Page images
PDF
EPUB

No. 210.-Protests 989836, etc., of Calhoun, Robbins & Co. (New York).

COTTON AND SILK CORDS.-Cotton and silk elastic cords classified as braids at 90 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable under paragraph 913 or 1207.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel the cotton cords were held dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 913 and the silk cords at 55 per cent under paragraph 1207.

No. 211.-Protests 143072-G, etc., of Wm. H. Masson et al. (Baltimore).

ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS.-Artificial flowers classified under paragraph 1430, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable at 60 per cent under paragraph 1419. Opinion by HoWELL, Ch. J. There was nothing in the record to warrant a disturbance of the collector's action. G. A. 9062 (T. D. 41228), affirmed in Blumenthal v. United States (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. —; T. D. 41531) noted. overruled.

Protests

No. 212.-Protest 131759-G of Johnson & Faulkner (New York). UPHOLSTERY CLOTHS.-Merchandise invoiced as "rayure Louis XV," classified as woven silk fabrics at 55 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1205, tariff act of 1922, is claimed dutiable as Jacquard woven upholstery cloths at 45 per cent under paragraph 909.

Opinion by HOWELL, Ch. J. It was found that the goods in question are in chief value of cotton, Jacquard figured. The claim under paragraph 909 was therefore sustained as they are used for upholstery purposes.

No. 213.-Protest 148933-G of Bloomingdale Bros. and protests 124594–G, etc., of Joseph Gluck & Co. et al. (New York).

COTTON RUGS.-Cotton rugs classified under paragraph 909 or 910, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 1022. Opinions by WELLER, J.

graph 1022 as claimed.

The rugs in question were held dutiable under para

No. 214.-Protest 144956-G of New England Waste Co. (New York).

WILLOWED PICKER WASTE.-Merchandise classified as cotton waste manufactured at 5 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 901, tariff act of 1922, is claimed free of duty under paragraph 1560.

Opinion by WELLER, J. The protest was sustained on the authority of G. A. 8729 (T. D. 39966) relating to willowed picker cotton waste.

No. 215.

Protest 92407-G/8141 of A. Sampson (New Orleans).

ROPE JUNK-CORDAGE.-Merchandise entered as rope junk and assessed for duty at 21⁄2 cents per pound under paragraph 1005, tariff act of 1922, is claimed free of duty as old junk under paragraph 1601.

Opinion by WELLER, J. It was shown that this material could no longer be used as rope and that it was sold for paper making. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1601 was sustained.

No. 216.-Protests 982942, etc., of Alden Textile Co. et al. and protests 972991, etc., of Butterfield & Co., Inc. (New York).

WOVEN COTTON CLOTH.-The question here is whether certain cotton cloth was properly assessed for additional duty under paragraph 906, tariff act of 1922, as woven with drop boxes.

Opinions by WELLER, J. In accordance with stipulations of counsel the protests were sustained as to such cloth as was not woven with drop boxes.

No. 217.-Protests 92952-G, etc., of James Elliott & Co., protests 144992-G etc., of The Linen Thread Co. et al., protest 128918-G of Mills & Gibb Corporation, and protests 128575-G, etc., of Syndicate Trading Co. et al. (New York).

FLAX FABRICS.-It is claimed in these cases that certain plain woven flax fabrics are dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1011, tariff act of 1922. Opinions by HOWELL, J. United States v. Linen Thread Co. (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 359; T. D. 41257) followed holding plain woven flax fabrics dutiable under paragraph 1011 as claimed.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, JULY 12, 1926

No. 218.-Protests 961215, etc., of Alexander Industries (Inc.), et al. (New York). RAZOR PARTS.-Parts of safety razors consisting of frames and blades classified at 55 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 128, tariff act of 1913, are claimed to be parts of razors valued at less than $1 per dozen, dutiable under the same paragraph at only 35 per cent.

Opinion by FISCHER, J. On the record presented it was found that the imported blades and frames, when combined in a razor, have a foreign valuation under the terms of paragraph R of not more than $1 per dozen. The claim at 35 per cent under paragraph 128 was therefore sustained. United States v. Witte (7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 181; T. D. 36504) distinguished.

No. 219.-Protests 97765-G, etc., of Scintilla Magneto Co. (New York).

AUTOMOBILE PARTS.-Magnetos, starting devices, generators, etc., and parts thereof, intended for use on automobiles, classified as machines or parts thereof at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 372, tariff act of 1922, are claimed dutiable as parts of automobiles at 25 per cent under paragraph 369.

Opinion by Fischer, J. The testimony established that the Scintilla automotive magnetos and their parts were made under contract for use as parts of automobiles. The protests were sustained in part. G. A. 9010 (T. D. 40955) followed.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, JULY 12, 1926

No. 220.-Protest 16465-G of Roope Eddy Co. (Boston).

LEGALITY OF RULE XXXVI.—It is claimed here that Rule XXXVI requiring a petition for remission of additional duties to be verified is ambiguous and unreasonable.

Opinion by Waite, J. The petition was filed before liquidation and was not verified. The protest was overruled.

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

JULY 8, 1926

No. 221.-LOOM PICKERS.-Protest 1931-G of P. R. Rincones, Jr., Co. (Abstract 91.) Rehearing granted.

BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, JULY 19, 1926

No. 222.-Petition 2857-R of Yee Chong Lung & Co. (San Francisco). REMISSION-INTENT.-This petition is for remission of additional duties on various kinds of Chinese merchandise.

Opinion by FISCHER, J. It was found that the petitioners knew of no higher price for the merchandise than that stated on entry and that there was no intention to defraud. The petition was therefore granted.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, JULY 19, 1926

No. 223.-Protest 104609-G of A. Perenyi (New York).

CURRENCY VALUE.-The question here is the rate at which Hungarian crowns should be reduced to United States money.

Opinion by WAITE, J. The protest was sustained in accordance with the report of the collector.

No. 224.-Protest 987990 of Kamikawa Bros. (San Francisco).

SAKE LEES.-Sake lees classified as a nonenumerated manufactured article at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913, is claimed free of duty as a crude vegetable substance under paragraph 552, or dutiable at 10 per cent under paragraph 384 or 385.

Opinion by WAITE, J. The sample appeared to be a reddish-brown substance of the consistency of stiff dough, produced in the manufacture of sake but sold and dealt in as a separate commodity, apparently an offal or residue. On the authority of G. A. 8475 (T. D. 38898) the commodity in question was held properly classified at 15 per cent under paragraph 385. Willits v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 499; T. D. 39657) held not to be applicable or controlling. No. 225.-Protest 978468 of International Druggist Supply Co (New York). WAFERS.-Wafers classified at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 733, tariff act of 1922, are claimed free of duty under paragraph 1692 as not edible. Opinion by WAITE, J. On the authority of Abstract 50383 the wafers in question were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1692.

No. 226.-Protests 147717-G, etc., of J. DeLucia et al. (New York).

PORK SAUSAGES.-Sausages composed of pork, salt, and spices, in hermetically sealed tins, are claimed dutiable as prepared pork at 2 cents per pound under paragraph 703, tariff act of 1922.

Opinion by WAITE, J. The sausages in question were held dutiable under paragraph 703 as claimed.

No. 227.-Protest 133092-G of Ed. Maurer (New York).

PINEAPPLES.-It is claimed here that certain pineapples are dutiable at 2 cents per pound under paragraph 746, tariff act of 1922, on the basis of 5 pounds of fruit in the No. 8 tins and 334 pounds in the No. 6 tins.

Opinion by WAITE, J. On the authority of Peabody v. United States (13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 80; T. D. 40935) the protest was sustained.

No. 228.-Protests 29933-G, etc., of Julius Wile Sons & Co. (New York). VEGETABLES, PREPARED.-Certain maize put up in bottles in vinegar, classified as prepared vegetables at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 773, tariff act of 1922, is claimed dutiable under paragraph 724.

Opinion by WAITE, J. The record was found too meager to warrant a disturbance of the collector's action. The protest was therefore overruled.

No. 229.-Protest 7536-G of Kamikawa Bros. (San Francisco).

KAMABOKO FISH IN TINS.-Kamaboko classified as prepared vegetables at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 200, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as fish in tins at 15 per cent under paragraph 216.

Opinion by WAITE, J. In accordance with the report of the appraiser kamaboko was held dutiable under paragraph 216.

No. 230.—Petition 691-R of Finkelstein & Kommel (New York).

REMISSION-INTENT.-It is claimed here that there was a mistake in not making certain additions to the entered value. Additional duties were assessed. Opinion by WAITE, J. It was found that apparently there were three items upon which the petitioner intended to make additions whereas he only made them on two. As there was no intention to defraud the revenue, the petition was granted.

No. 231.-Protest 129839-G of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (Philadelphia).

WASTE. Certain bales of rags classified as waste at 10 per cent ad valorem are claimed free of duty as paper stock.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. It was shown that the rags were mixed and dirty and not suitable for use as wipers. They were held entitled to free entry as paper stock. Harley v. United States (14 Ct. Cust. Appls. —; T. D. 41644)

followed.

No. 232.-Protest 119861-G of Hawley & Letzerich (Galveston).
BAGGING WIDTH.

ADAMSON, Justice: The protest in this case complains of the quantity or yardage of certain bagging. The protest, however, and the answers of the collector and appraiser seem to miss the point as contemplated by law. The law, paragraph 1019, classified cotton coverings in various particulars, concluding as follows: "Not exceeding sixteen threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, and weighing not less than fifteen ounces nor more than thirty-two ounces to the square yard, six-tenths of 1 cent per square yard; weighing more than thirty-two ounces per square yard, three-tenths of 1 cent per pound." No issue was made as to the number of threads nor the weight nor the rate of duty assessed. The evidence, however, related to the question properly involved and that is, the proper measurement of the yardage for the purpose of assessment of duty. The invoices billed so many yards of the width of 44 inches. There is no evidence as to any trade understanding as to standard widths, whether 44 inches is a standard width or whether there are other standard widths.

The collector and appraiser say nothing about the length of the bolts of bagging. They refer only to the width and say that it exceeds 44 inches in width, a detail that the law makes no mention of at all. The law deals entirely with square yards. If the officers had measured both the length and width and found more square yards than invoiced and entered, advanced appraisement and assessment would have been in order, but that was not done. They limited their measurements to the width. On the other hand, the evidence on the hearing proved conclusively that this bagging was of the standard width dealt in at Galveston. That not one of numerous instances in the past had ever described the bagging as anything but 44 inches wide.

The testimony was that, in order to save space on which tonnage is based in the ships, the rolls or bolts of bagging were put into bales and tightly pressed in order to reduce the bulk. As a result of that the width is increased, and the length of the bolt is decreased, so that if measured in that condition when the imported bales are opened, there would be no change in the number of square yards. The reduction in length corresponds adversely with the increase in width. In the brief of Government counsel it is claimed that it was admitted on the stand on page 17 that the width was increased at the time of importation. As already pointed out, increasing in width would not increase the square yards if the length was also decreased, but that admission must be taken according to law, which provides that when an admission is made all that the admitter said must go in together. That admission was coupled in the same sentence with the explanation about how the width was increased through compression which at the same time reduced the length.

We think the proof conclusively shows that the importation did not contain any more square yards than invoiced and entered, and the protest is sustained. The collector will reliquidate accordingly.

No. 233.-Protest 63410-G of Hinz & Landt, Inc. (San Francisco).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-HEMP BRAID.-Hemp braid in small hanks was assessed with additional duty as not legally marked.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. It appeared satisfactorily from the record and an examination of the samples that the merchandise was capable of being marked with the country of production. The protest was therefore overruled.

No. 234.-Protest 92475-G of O. G. Hempstead & Son (Philadelphia).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-WAFERS.-The claim here is that certain wafers should not have been assessed with additional duty as not legally marked.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. It was found that while in process of manufacture the wafers could have been legally marked without injury. It was held that the law does not excuse or count the expense or inconvenience, one purpose of section 304-a being to make difficult and expensive importations of merchandise in order to discourage or reduce competition with domestic merchandise. No. 235.-Protests 985294, etc., of Alfonso Gesto et al. (New York).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-FIGS IN BASKETS.-The claim here is that certain figs in baskets should not have been assessed with additional duty as not legally marked.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. The protests were sustained as to figs in baskets. No. 236.-Protests 989024, etc., of Auction Sales Co. et al. (New York).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-ARTICLES IN TINS.-The question here is whether certain articles in tins should have been assessed with additional duty as not legally marked.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. The protests were sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel.

No. 237.-Protest 144389-G of Carl Steiner (New York).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-ONION PAPER IN BALES.-Onion paper imported in bales is claimed not subject to additional duty as not legally marked. Opinion by ADAMSON, J. It was found that the individual sheets of onion paper were the merchandise in question and were incapable of being marked without injury. The protest was therefore sustained.

No. 238.-Protest 143668-G of C. B. Richard & Co. (New York).

MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-AMBER BEAD CHAINS-CHEMICALS.Certain amber beads in chains and bottles of chemicals were assessed with additional duty as not legally marked.

Opinion by ADAMSON, J. On the authority of Abstract 47213, affirmed in Rozelaar v. United States (12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 567; T. D. 40786) the protest was overruled as to the amber bead chains in question. As the chemical was incapable of being marked, that claim was sustained accordingly.

No. 239.-Petition 3098-R of Cohn & Lewis (New York).

REMISSION EVIDENCE.-This petition is for remission of additional duties. Opinion by ADAMSON, J. The evidence supporting the allegations, the petition was granted.

BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, JULY 22, 1926

No. 240.-Protest 55308-G of Madeira Embroidery Co. (New York).

CURRENCY-DATE OF EXPORTATION.-The question at issue here is the rate at which the currency of the invoice should be reduced to United States money. Opinion by WAITE, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise was exported from Madeira on a vessel sailing January 19, 1922, and it was held that the reduction should have been made on the basis of exchange on that date.

No. 241.-Protest 151113-G of S. W. Bridges & Co. (New York).

WEIGHT. It is claimed here that there was an error in the dutiable weight of merchandise.

« PreviousContinue »