Page images
PDF
EPUB

Machines used in the manufacture of jute were held dutiable under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. United States v. Murphy (T. D. 33516) followed.

No. 32949.--COPPER MATTE.-Protests 672122, etc., of United States Metals Refining Co. et al. (New York and Perth Amboy).

Copper matte assessed as lead-bearing ore under paragraph 181, tariff act of 1909, was held free of duty as regulus of copper (par. 544), as claimed.

FISCHER, General Appraiser: * * * It is here shown conclusively that the terms "copper matte" and "copper regulus" are one and the same, being used interchangeably to denote the impure and unfinished product of the smelting of copper sulphide ores. It is likewise shown by the record that in commercial copper mattes the sulphur is the essential ingredient, and that besides copper it contains iron, lead, silver, gold, arsenic, and antimony; that where it contains from 12 to 15 per cent of copper or more, in combination with sulphur, it is impracticable to reduce it in other than a copper furnace; that when lead is present it is an undesirable constituent; that the smelter usually exacts a penalty for its presence; and that if the copper matte contained the necessary amount of copper it could have lead present to the extent of 14 to 15 per cent (or thereabouts), and still be a copper matte.

In these cases we find the merchandise to be copper matte, which we hold to be the copper regulus for which free provision is made in paragraph 544 of the tariff. Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining Co. (124 Fed., 1002).

*

*

No. 32950.-ALUMINUM IN SHEETS.-Protest 644766 of J. J. Gavin & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Aluminum sheets, lacquered and painted, assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as aluminum in sheets (par. 172). Protest overruled. Universal Shipping Co. v. United States (T. D. 33479) followed.

No. 32951.-TEXTILE MACHINES-CUTTING MACHINES-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protests 564088, etc., of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Textile machines designed for cutting dough, biscuits, paper, textile and glass tubing, and others used in color work on decalcomania sheets, assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as machine tools (par. 197). Protests overruled. Sears v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055), Surgical Supply Importing Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 429; T. D. 33001), and Gallagher v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 520; T. D. 33168) followed.

No. 32952.-FIGURED COTTONS.-Protests 409009, etc., of Henry Siegel Co. (Boston). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

On the authority of Quaintance v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 215; T. D. 31950) figured cottons were held properly classified under paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JUNE 28, 1913.

No. 32953.-CAPERS.-Protests 633017, etc., of Chas. Gulden (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Capers put up in vinegar and packed in bottles or barrels were held dutiable as pickles under paragraph 253, tariff act of 1909, as assessed. Austin v. United States (T. D. 33483) followed.

No. 32954.-EVERGREEN SEEDLINGS-NURSERY STOCK.-Protests 686485, etc., of Maltus & Ware (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Evergreen seedlings classified as nursery stock were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 668, tariff act of 1909. Protests sustained in part.

No. 32955.-HORSE-RADISH ROOTS.-Protests 689859, etc., of J. Nix & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Wallace (T. D. 33413) horse-radish roots were held free of duty under paragraph 630, tariff act of 1909.

No. 32956.-MEAT BALLS.-Protests 545295-39037, etc., of P. V. Bright Brokerage Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Following abstract 30088 (T. D. 32858) the board held meat balls dutiable as prepared meat under paragraph 286, tariff act of 1909.

No. 32957.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 689201 of A. A. Mills (Fall River). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JUNE 30, 1913.

No. 32958.-OAK LOGS, HEWN.-Protests 559362, etc., of Robert Dollar Co. (San Francisco). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Hewn Japanese white oak logs assessed under paragraph 200, tariff act of 1909, were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 713. G. A. 7357 (T. D. 32454) followed. No. 32959.-NATURAL FLOWERS, COLORED.-Protests 628258, etc., of A. H. Ringk & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Protests overruled as to natural flowers artificially colored, classified under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909.

No. 32960.-BASKETS, STAINED.-Protests 669320, etc., of Basket Importing Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Baskets made of stained chip willow and braided rush were held properly classified as stained baskets under paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909. Thomsen v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 37; T. D. 31590) followed.

No. 32961.-WOOL ON SHEEPSKINS.-Protests 657873, etc., of Goat & Sheepskin Importing Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

On the authority of Abstract 26749 (T. D. 31899) wool on sheepskins was held properly classified under paragraphs 370 and 371, tariff act of 1909.

No. 32962.-SADDLES.-Protest 637831 of Theodore H. Davies & Co. (Honolulu). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Saddles classified under paragraph 461, tariff act of 1909, were found to be made of cattle hides of the bovine species and held dutiable under paragraph 450, as claimed.

-

No. 32963.-Embroidered Leather Gloves.-Protests 673608, etc., of J. N. Adam & Co. (Buffalo), protest 621073-41193 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago), protest 650392 of Bloomingdale Bros., protests 586437, etc., of H. B. Claflin Co. et al., protests 663491, etc., of Goldschmidt Bros. Co. et al., protests 555275, etc., of P. C. Kuyper & Co. et al., protests 576016, etc., of Mills & Gibb, and protests 579763, etc., of Rusch & Co. (New York), protest 635391 of C. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis), and protest 659974 of Golden Rule (St. Paul). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

United States v. Wertheimer (T. D. 33528) followed as to embroidered leather gloves. Protests sustained in part.

No. 32964.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 538083, etc., of G. A. &. E. Meyer et al., and protests 580947, etc., of Schrader & Ehlers et al. (New York), protest 668390 of Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co. (St. Joseph), and protests 416536, etc., of B. Nugent & Bro. Dry Goods Co. et al. (St. Louis). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 32965.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 210826, etc., of J. J. Buchey & Co. et al., and protests 608918, etc., of W. H. & F. Jordan, jr., et al. (Philadelphia). Protests abandoned.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JUNE 30, 1913.

No. 32966.-ADHESIVE FELT.-Protest 705162 of Baker, Carver & Morell (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Adhesive felt for sheathing vessels was held free of duty under paragraph 564, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. G. A. 7451 (T. D. 33302) followed.

-

No. 32967.-MEAT-SLICING MACHINES.-Protests 589561-38568, etc., of Gallagher & Ascher (Chicago). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

On the authority of Gallagher v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 520; T. D. 33168), slicers or sharpeners for meat-slicing machines were held properly assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909.

No. 32968.-HINGES OF STEEL AND BRONZE.-Protests 685170, etc., of J. J. Gavin & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Door hinges made of steel and bronze, assessed as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as iron or steel hinges (par. 144). Protests overruled. G. A. 7455 (T. D. 33337) followed.

No. 32969.-NICKEL-PLATED STEEL IN STRIPS.-Protests 582943, etc., of Oelrichs & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Nickel-plated steel strips in coils were held properly classified under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Hirsch v. United States (T. D. 33365) followed.

No. 32970.-LACQUERED METAL CASH BOXES-TOYS.-Protest 698110 of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (Baltimore). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Small cash boxes made of lacquered metal, assessed under paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as toys (par. 431). Protest overruled. Woolworth v. United States (T. D. 33478) followed.

No. 32971.-POST CARDS-PRINTED MATTER.-Protest 695529 of I. Stern Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Post cards assessed as embossed, under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as printed matter (par. 416). Protest sustained on the authority of United States v. Fuld (T. D. 33476).

No. 32972.-Post Cards-BOOKLETS.-Protests 422111, etc., of Strauss & Muller et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Post cards in chief value of paper printed by processes other than lithographic and embossed were held dutiable under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Fuld (T. D. 33476) followed. Decorated booklets were held dutiable under paragraph 412. United States v. Hagelberg (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 341; T. D. 32626) followed. Protests sustained in part.

No. 32973.-HAND-DECORATED BOOKLETS.-Protest 659198 of Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Booklets classified as manufactures of pyroxylin under paragraph 17, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as decorated booklets (par. 412). United States v. Hagelberg (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 341; T. D. 32626) followed.

No. 32974.-BOOKS PRINTED MORE THAN 20 YEARS.-Protest 666060 of American Express Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

"Book of Scottish Song," in two volumes, 1845, was held entitled to free entry as printed more than 20 years, under paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 32975.--CELLULOSE WATTE-PAPER NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR.-Protests 664451, etc., of Fillmann, Lee & Happel et al., and protests 660458, etc., of Rose Litho. Co. (New York). Opinions by Fischer, G. A.

Cellulose watte or watoline, composed of a number of layers of thin, soft, crêped paper, was held properly classified under paragraph 410, tariff act of 1909, and not dutiable as paper not specially provided for (par. 415), as claimed. G. A. 7456 (T. D. 33347) followed.

No. 32976.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 620105, etc., of Albrecht & Meister Co. et al., and protests 665398, etc., of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne et al. (New York). Opinions by Fischer, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 32977.-SPUN SILK YARNS.-Protests 469847, etc., of Charles Moebius et al., protests 446398, etc., of Albert Stern et al., and protests 518801, etc., of L. & E. Stirn (New York). Opinions by Howell, G. A.

Protests sustained claiming spun silk yarns to be dutiable according to the number in their dyed condition. G. A. 7295 (T. D. 32002) followed.

No. 32978.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 334153-28261, etc., of D. B. Fisk & Co. et al. (Chicago), and protests 523326, etc., of M. Schmitt et al., protests 532254, etc., of Shoninger Bros. et al., and protests 234735, etc., of Spingarn Bros. et al. (New York). Opinions by Howell; G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 32979.-RELIQUIDATION.-Protest 211746 of Brown & Roese (New York).

COOPER, General Appraiser: This protest is against the assessment of 20 per cent ad valorem on certain packages of imitation horsehair under section 6 of the tariff act of 1897, the importer claiming the same to be dutiable, by similitude, as bleached cotton yarn under paragraph 302 of said act,

The collector reports that "the protest is lodged against the reliquidation of the entry made in satisfaction of protest 2467," and an inspection of the invoice shows that the merchandise was originally returned at 30 per cent ad valorem as silk yarn under paragraph 384, but that the entry was reliquidated on July 14, 1906, at 20 per cent ad valorem.

At the hearing counsel for the importers offered in evidence the original protest (2467), in accordance with which the collector reports the entry was reliquidated. An inspection of the exhibit shows that in the original protest the importers claimed the merchandise to be dutiable under paragraph 302, and also at 10 or 20 per cent ad valorem under section 6. Across the face of the protest appears the following:

NEW YORK, July 12/6. This protest is hereby withdrawn and made void, except claim 20% under sec. 6. J. B. WILKINSON, Atty. for May, Ellis & Co.

75044 VOL 24-13-73

The entry was reliquidated by the collector two days after this statement was put on the protest. Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Eckstein (222 U. S., 130; T D. 32090) imitation horsehair was held to be dutiable under paragraph 302, but, before passing upon the merits of the claims in this protest, we must first decide whether or not the collector reliquidated the entry in accordance with the original protest, or whether he made a voluntary reliquidation against which the importers would have the right of protest.

The only action a collector may legally take after the filing of a protest is to reliquidate the entry in accordance with the claims made or to forward the same to the Board of General Appraisers. In Gulbenkian v. Stranahan (158 Fed., 836; T. D. 28451) the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York held that section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, providing for the filing of protests by dissatisfied importers against decisions of collectors of customs and for the transmission of the protests to the Board of General Appraisers for decision, is as well complied with where a collector sustains a protest without such transmission as where he sends it to the board. In the present case the collector did not send the protest to the board, but he reliquidated the entry in accordance with the only claim in the protest not abandoned, and it is our opinion that the reliquidation at 20 per cent ad valorem on July 14, 1906, was made by the collector in satisfaction of the protest and that the protestants are estopped from making further claims in another protest, and we hold that the second protest filed against the assessment on the same goods is invalid. The protest is overruled.

No. 32980. BLEACHED COTTON CLOTH-ETAMINES.-Protests 282133, etc., of P. K. Wilson & Son (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

On the authority of G. A. 6804 (T. D. 29259) etamines were held dutiable under paragraphs 305 and 313, tariff act of 1897, as claimed. G. A. 6956 (T. D. 30206) followed as to cotton cloth with bleached or unbleached foundation threads having extra colored threads introduced to form a figure.

No. 32981.-FIGURED COTTONS.-Protests 394971. etc., of R. H. Macy & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Protests overruled as to figured cottons assessed under paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909. Quaintance v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 215; T. D. 31950) followed.

No. 32982.-MERCERIZED COTTONS.-Protests 541337, etc., of Heyliger & Raubitschek et al., and protests 632065, etc., of George W. Pleissner (New York). Opinions by Cooper, G. A.

Mercerized cottons were held subject to additional duty under paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled.

No. 32983.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 696153, etc., of American Express Co. et al., and protests 109326, etc., of Mills & Gibb et al. (New York). Opinions by Cooper, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JUNE 30, 1913.

No. 32984.-AMERICAN FISHERIES.-Protests 659124, etc., of Post Fish Co. (San

dusky).

WAITE, General Appraiser: The same question arises in these cases as arose in the Post Fish Co. case, G. A. 7449 (T. D. 33279), on American fisheries, which has been appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals, suit 1167. The testimony taken in

« PreviousContinue »