Page images
PDF
EPUB

that is, it came in there subject to duty-and then, that a uniform practice was first put in force, and later, that Mr. Curtis made an order revoking the Andrew order and putting the article on the free list.

Secretary MACVEAGH. Now, as to that question-as to the matter in New York. New York was not the port through which this article was mainly coming. The CHAIRMAN. Not the bulk of it, no.

Secretary MACVEAGH. And the fact is there was a change in the chemists. Now, this is largely a question of chemistry, or chemistry was largely involved in this question. It is a chemical question and the head examiner or head chemist, or the head of the laboratory at New York, was changed, and a man of very great ability, a man of very marked ability-Mr. Moore-went out, while a man not of such exceptional ability and experience came in as the chief of that laboratory. By the way, not in this connection at all, but in a general connection, that is one of the features of the appraiser's office that I want to thoroughly overhaul—that is, the laboratory there. Now, as long as Mr. Moore was in that office his decision was the authority, and creosote oil came into New York just as it came everywhere else, free-that is, ever since the Dingley bill was passed, as it was only last summer that this new man reversed the practice in New York. That you see was not of long standing. That was a new thing. The position that Moore has taken was that the mere presence of chlorin was not an evidence of the difference in the character of the goods, because the creosote oil could readily have a trace of chlorin in it as a result of the process of distillation or as the result of the sea voyage; and he took the same position that everybody else took in the Treasury Department and at his port.

It was only along about September or August that there was any reversal of the all-constant attitude of the Treasury Department. It was made over there at New York, and by a new chemist in the laboratory who took a more technical view than had ever been taken before on the question of chlorin. That is the situation. New York did the reversing, and not Mr. Curtis. Mr. Curtis's decision was simply a return to the uniform practice of the department ever since the Dingley bill was passed. And that is what made it so extraordinary to me, that they should have thought themselves competent here to make any such important reversal of the whole current of the Treasury Department's decisions, judgments, and actions for 15 years, or for whatever time it was without any reference to anybody that was responsible, without any reference to the Assistant Secretary in charge of customs, and without any reference to the Secretary. We had no chance at all to pass upon the thing (pp. 97–98).

In view of this testimony of the Secretary we are led to note that Dr. Moore was a witness in the case at bar, and testified after being shown the chemist's report (Ex. A), as follows:

Q. What information does it contain which enables you to make that determination?-A. The size of the fractions, especially the residue and the presence of zinc and chlorin.

Q. What do those facts indicate to you?-A. That it is not creosote oil (p. 206). Dr. Moore also testified that while a witness in the Downing case, supra, he gave it as his opinion that the presence of less than 1 per cent of chlorin indicated that the article involved was not creosote oil, so that, so far as the merchandise now under consideration is concerned, Dr. Moore could not be correctly quoted as an authority for its being dead or creosote oil, either from the standpoint of distillation fractions or the quantities of zinc and chlorin found upon analysis. He seems to have been in complete accord with the chemists in the appraiser's laboratory at the port of New York when

the analyses A and B were made, and from this fact it is apparent that the order of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (T. D. 31093), supra, could not have been based upon the practice that had prevailed in the New York laboratory while Dr. Moore was its head.

Based upon the record before us and decisions of the board and the United States Circuit Court there would be absolutely no warrant for holding that "so-called creosote oil containing less than 1 per cent of chlorin or zinc compounds" is entitled to free entry as dead or creosote oil.

On the contrary, we are convinced that, based upon both the highboiling points and the presence of zinc and chlorin shown, the merchandise must take classification as a coal-tar preparation and pay duty as assessed.

The decision of the collector is affirmed in each case.

(T. D. 33260-G. A. 7443.)

Ribbon wires.

Ribbon wires composed of flat strips of woven cotton material containing three round steel wires, one in each edge and the other in the middle, are dutiable under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, as articles made of steel wire and subject to the proviso to the said paragraph, levying an extra duty of 1 cent per pound in addition to the duty imposed by said paragraph on the wire of which they are made and a minimum rate of 40 per cent ad valorem.

United States General Appraisers, New York, March 3, 1913.

In the matter of protests 645662, etc., of A. Steinhardt & Bro. (Inc.) et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers; HOWELL, G. A., absent).

FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of so-called ribbon wires. These consist of flat strips of woven cotton material containing three round steel wires, one in each edge and the other in the middle of the strip.

The ribbon wire in question was assessed with duty at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, as a manufacture of round steel wire, cotton covered, and is claimed by the importers to be dutiable properly at but 35 per cent ad valorem under the same paragraph.

For convenience we separate and number the clauses of paragraph 135, to which reference here will be made:

(1) Round iron or steel wire, not smaller than number thirteen wire gauge, one cent per pound; smaller than number thirteen and not smaller than number sixteen wire gauge, one and one-fourth cents per pound; smaller than number sixteen wire gauge, one and three-fourths cents per pound: Provided, That all the foregoing shall pay duty at not less than thirty-five per centum ad valorem;

(2) All wire composed of iron, steel, or other metal except gold or silver, covered with cotton, silk, or other material, corset clasps, corset steels, dress steels, and all flat

wires, and steel in strips, not thicker than number fifteen wire gauge and not exceeding five inches in width, whether in long or short lengths, in coils or otherwise, and whether rolled or drawn through dies or rolls, or otherwise produced,

(3) And all other wire not specially provided for in this section, shall pay a duty of not less than thirty-five per centum ad valorem;

(4) On iron or steel wire coated by dipping, galvanizing, or similar process with zinc, tin, or other metal, there shall be paid two-tenths of one cent per pound in addition to the rate imposed on the wire of which it is made:

(5) Provided further, That articles manufactured wholly or in chief value of any wire or wires provided for in this paragraph shall pay the maximum rate of duty imposed in this section upon any wire used in the manufacture of such articles and in addition thereto one cent per pound: And provided further, That no article made from or composed of wire shall pay a less rate of duty than forty per centum ad valorem.

The first disputed question is whether clause 2 or clause 5 would apply. To determine this it seems necessary to consider whether the merchandise is a cotton-covered steel wire or an article made from wire. It would appear clear that this ribbon wire is not a steel wire covered with cotton. It is rather a collection of steel wires which are inserted in a woven material and which are separated from one another by the same material. If the article were in fact considered a cotton-covered steel wire, then, as clause 2 prescribes a minimum. rate the object of which is to prevent a classification of the goods covered thereby at a lower rate of duty, it could in no way prevail over the imposition of a higher applicable rate of duty. Note the case of Schloss Co. v. United States (T. D. 33038). As stated, we are satisfied that this ribbon wire is not a covered wire under the statute, but an article manufactured from wire. A similar conclusion was arrived at by the board as to telephone-switchboard cables in G. A. 4733 (T. D. 22380). That ruling was affirmed by the Circuit Court in Salt v. United States (127 Fed., 890; T. D. 25044) and by the Circuit Court of Appeals (134 Fed., 1021; T. D. 25901). The second disputed question arises over the possible application of clause 3. The commercial evidence here offered would show that this article is in trade known as "ribbon wire," and as it is not provided for eo nomine the query is, Would it be a wire not specially provided for, as specified in clause 3? But this clause provides only a minimum rate, and it leads to the same result, as we must look further for a primary rate. This primary rate is found in clause 5, as independent of the commercial understanding of the article it is in fact an article made out of wire, and the return of the appraiser is persuasive of the fact that it is in chief value of round steel wire.

The last question arises as we seek to apply the provisions of clause 5. As that clause provides that articles made from wire shall pay the maximum duty imposed on the wire used in their manufacture, but not less than 40 per cent ad valorem, it is necessary to determine whether this ribbon wire is made of round steel wire or of steel wire covered with cotton. If the article is made in chief value of a covered wire we would once more be relegated to clause 2, which prescribes

only a minimum rate. The ruling in the Schloss case would then be decisive of the issue. As we view the article, it is made in chief value of a round steel wire smaller than No. 16 wire gauge. This view associates clauses 1 and 5 with the finished article, and it is subject to the specific rates as therein provided, or at 35 per cent ad valorem plus 1 cent per pound, as provided for in clause 5, but in any event at not less than 40 per cent ad valorem.

The goods were assessed at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 135, and we see no error in such assessments. The protests are accordingly in all respects overruled.

(T. D. 33261-G. A. 7444.)

Glass stem ware.

Goblets and other glass stem ware, composed in part of blown glass but in chief value of molded or pressed glass, are dutiable as "manufactures of glass" under paragraph 109, and not as articles "composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise" under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909.

United States General Appraisers, New York, March 3, 1913.

In the matter of protests 664375, etc., of A. Gredelus against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question consists of goblets and other glass stem ware that have not been subjected to any one of the superadded processes named in paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1909. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 98 for "all articles of every description * composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise." The importers claim that said merchandise is dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as "manufactures of glass" under paragraph 109 of said act.

* *

The tariff act of 1897, paragraph 100, provided for "porcelain, opal, and other blown glassware." Under that act glass stem ware, like the merchandise here in question and all other articles composed of blown glass, when in combination with molded or pressed glass or other materials, were held dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as "manufactures of glass" under paragraph 112, irrespective of whether or not the articles were in chief value of blown glass. See Eimer v. United States (126 Fed., 439; T. D. 25112) and Heil Chemical Co. v. United States (T. D. 29205). Congress evidently had these decisions in mind when enacting the act of 1909, and provided in paragraph 98 for "all other articles of every description * * * composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise," thereby limiting the glassware classifiable under paragraph 98 to that composed wholly or in chief value of blown glass. Articles which are in chief value of pressed or molded glass, therefore, will be dutiable under paragraph 109 as "manufactures of glass."

The importers limited their claim in this case to items 7313, 8034, 2492, and 7291, covered by protest 664375, and item 8473, covered by protest 665924. The testimony shows that the bowl of each of these articles was blown in a mold, while the stem and foot thereof were not blown either in a mold or otherwise; that the bowls are made separately by less skilled labor than that employed in making the stems or feet of the articles; that the several parts are joined together after they have assumed the form in which they appear in the completed merchandise; and that the blown bowls are of much less value than the stems and feet.

On this evidence we find that the merchandise in question is not "composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise" and sustain the protest claim of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109 of said act, the collector's decision relative to the items mentioned in each case being reversed.

As to all other merchandise and in all other respects, except as noted, the protests are overruled and the collector's decisions affirmed.

1. DRAWNWORK ARTICLES.

(T. D. 33262-G. A. 7445.)

Drawnwork articles.

Articles of cotton, flax, or other vegetable fiber from which threads have been drawn, cut, or punched to produce openwork, are dutiable under the provision therefor in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909.

2. GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION.

*

*

*

The provision in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, for "articles or fabrics from which threads have been drawn, cut, or punched to produce openwork,” describes a distinct species of articles, and is not limited in its application by the subsequent phrases "ornamented or embroidered in any manner herein described, in any part thereof, however small," so as to include only such articles which have been embroidered, appliquéd, scalloped, or ornamented by other means described in the paragraph.

3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION-PUNCTUATION.

A statute should be read with such punctuation marks as are manifestly required, but construction must be agreeable to the principles of English grammar, render the language plain and unambiguous, and harmonize with the evident intent of Congress.

4. SUBSTITUTION OF SEMICOLON FOR COMMA, INSERTION OF "OR."

The substitution of a semicolon for the comma or the insertion of the disjunctive conjunction "or" after the work "openwork" in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, renders the paragraph a consistent and harmonious whole, removes redundancy, repugnancy, or absurdity, and clearly reflects the legislative intent.

United States General Appraisers, New York, March 5, 1913. In the matter of protests 599053, etc., of M. H. Frank & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers; HOWELL, G. A., absent).

COOPER, General Appraiser: In this case there was much evidence introduced to prove and disprove, to establish and disestablish, that the imported merchandise was, or was not, lace articles or other

« PreviousContinue »