Page images
PDF
EPUB

The allowance shall not exceed the quantities and number of imported materials and parts used in the manufacture of the exported · automobiles shown in the sworn abstract from the manufacturing record.

[blocks in formation]

Where shooks of American manufacture were returned as barrels or boxes, and were tongued and grooved before importation, there is no requirement that the shooks be returned without advancement in value under paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909. They are therefore free of duty when their identity is proved by regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury to be of American origin.

United States General Appraisers, New York, March 31, 1913.

In the matter of protests 641743, etc., of W. P. Willis & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers). SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: These protests all involve the same question. The collector reports that in view of the statement on the consular certificate attached to the invoice that the shooks were tongued and grooved abroad, the same were held to be advanced in value, and duty was accordingly assessed thereon as coverings of foreign origin, at the rate applicable to the contents, in accordance with subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909. These shooks are claimed to be of American manufacture, and therefore free of duty under paragraph 500 of said act.

This is the only claim relied on by the importers. Said paragraph 500 reads in part as follows:

500. Articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, not including animals. when returned after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means; casks, barrels, carboys, bags, and other containers or coverings of American manufacture exported filled with American products, or exported empty and returned filled with foreign products, including shooks and staves when returned as barrels or boxes; *

*

These shooks were returned as barrels or boxes. The second clause of said paragraph 500 contains no qualification that the shooks be returned without advancement in value. As observed by counsel, the shooks can not be made into boxes without a manipulation of some sort, and whether nailing, tonguing and grooving, or other

means of making containers out of shooks be employed, the finished container is directly within the purview of the statute.

Said paragraph 500 provides further that proof of the identity of such articles shall be made under general regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. This requirement has been complied with, showing the identity of the articles.

The protests are sustained and the collector's decision is reversed, with instructions to reliquidate the entries so as not to assess duty on the shooks in question.

(T. D. 33324-G. A. 7454.)

Abandonment-Goods must be deliverable.

GOODS LOST BY BEING SUNK IN WATER.

Where an attempt has been made to abandon imported merchandise under section 28, subsection 22, tariff act of 1909, the goods abandoned must be in a condition to be delivered or they can not be lawfully abandoned. If they have been destroyed by being sunk in the water and can not be delivered it is fatal to any recovery.

United States General Appraisers, New York, April 2, 1913.

In the matter of protest 649894 of T. D. Downing & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston.

Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers; HAY, G. A., absent).

SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: The importation consists of certain potatoes entered for consumption on February 2, 1912. The protest claims:

The reason for objection under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, is that proper allowance was not made by you (the collector) under our notice of abandonment dated February 6, 1912, which was in accordance with section 28, subsection 22.

Entry was made in the first instance of 4,000 bags of potatoes. Subsequently the inspector reported 1,919 bags of this importation short-landed. The importers thereupon filed a notice of abandonment under subsection 22 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 on "such proportion that are damaged on shipment of 2,081 bags potatoes." The appraiser thereupon reported "Decay 13.76 per cent; all worthless." This report covers the entire importation.

The importers were instructed where to deliver the potatoes to the collector, and to notify his office, so that an inspector could be sent to superintend the destruction of said merchandise. The importers state the merchandise was destroyed by them prior to receipt of the letter from the collector, and they made application to the Treasury Department for relief.

The requirements of subsection 22 of section 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, among other things, is that "all merchandise abandoned to the Government by the importers shall be delivered by the

importers thereof at such place within the port of arrival as the chief officer of customs may direct." The importers failed to deliver the merchandise in accordance with said notice, claiming that the same had previously been destroyed and cast into the dump.

It is admitted that the issue presented is one of law. In the case of Thomas & Pierson v. United States, suit 878 (T. D. 33305; affirming G. A. 7329, T. D. 32273), it was said as follows:

Subsection 22 does not extend the right of abandonment to all goods imported. But the paragraph clearly imports that abandoned goods shall be at the time of abandonment deliverable goods. Delivery is provided for in the paragraph, and this presupposes a deliverable condition. These goods were at the bottom of the river at the time of the proposed abandonment. It needs no evidence to demonstrate that they were not deliverable. It is also apparent that any notice requiring delivery would have been idle and absurd.

The argument of the importers is directly in contradiction of the principle settled by the above decision. The goods could not be delivered, and therefore the protest must be overruled and the collector's decision affirmed.

(T. D. 33325.)

Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.

Board 1.

McClelland, and

Board 2.-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper.

Board 3.-Waite, Somerville, and Hay.

BEFORE BOARD 1, MARCH 31, 1913.

No. 31856.-GREASE FOR STUFFING LEATHER.-Protests 669025, etc., of Marden, Orth & Hastings (Boston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Grease assessed under paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909, was held entitled to free entry as grease for stuffing or dressing leather (par. 580). Abstract 31415 (T. D. 33217) followed.

No. 31857.-GELATIN.-Protest 572734 of F. L. Roberts & Co. (Boston), and protest 578940 of Stanley Jordan & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

The commodity in question, classified as "gelatin in sheets," was held dutiable under the provision for gelatin in paragraph 23, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. American Express Co. v. United States (T. D. 33121) followed.

No. 31858. FEATHER BOAS.-Protests 296184, etc., of Germain, Hoffbauer & Helm Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Feather boas, stoles, or collars made in part of metal wire were held dutiable under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as claimed. Protests sustained in part.

No. 31859.--LINSEED OIL.-Protest 644905 of American Trading Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Linseed oil held properly classified under paragraph 35, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31860.-RUBBER WASTE.-Protest 660848 of Central Vermont Railway Co. (Burlington). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Trimmings or pieces of new india rubber produced in the manufacture of rubber goods held properly classified as waste under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 30941 (T. D. 33055) followed.

No. 31861.-WILLOW STICKS.-Protest 656925 of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Bundles of sticks of willow with the outer skin taken off held properly classified as willow for baskets under paragraph 212, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31862.-SILK-LINED BASKETS.-Protest 610750-41399 of Mandel Bros. (Chicago). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171) colored straw or wood baskets lined with silk were held dutiable under paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31863.-IMMORTELLES.-Protests 605691-41307, etc., of International Forwarding Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Colored and natural immortelles held properly classified under paragraphs 438 and 263, respectively, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 25349 (T. D. 31524) and Abstract 25903 (T. D. 31708) followed.

No. 31864.-FURS-OLD SEALSKIN JACKETS.-Protest 662256 of R. F. Lang (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Worn sealskin jackets and sleeves without lining, which are sold to furriers for material for making repairs, held dutiable as manufactures of fur prepared for use as materials, under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31865. PIGSKINS-LEATHER BELT BELLIES.-Protest 617836 of Charles B. Schultheis (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Pigskins dressed and finished held properly classified under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Dressed leather belt bellies held dutiable at 7 per cent under paragraph 450. Protest sustained in part.

No. 31866.-GRAIN LEATHER.-Protest 668065 of W. N. Proctor Co. (Boston), protest 532911 of M. Hancher, and protest 676997 of K. Kaufmann & Co. (Newark), protest 658248 of L. F. Robertson & Sons, and protest 540283 of Louis Windmuller & Roelker (New York), and protest 675129 of Western Leather Co. (Port Huron). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

Spalding v. United States (T. D. 32910) and Worsdell v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 270; T. D. 31977) followed as to grain, buff, or split leather held dutiable at 7 per cent under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31867.-GAUFFRE LEATHER.-Protest 675368-43150 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago), and protests 410087, etc., of Louis Dejonge & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

Dejonge v. United States (T. D. 33040) followed as to gauffre leather assessed at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled.

No. 31868.--BELTING LEATHER.-Protest 597074 of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Drawing leather cut from hides into strips, used for covering rollers in spindle drawing boxes, held dutiable at 5 and 10 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Crabb (T. D. 32964) followed. Protest sustained.

No. 31869.-COWHIDE SADDLES.-Protest 659984 of Bartley Bros. & Hall (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Cowhide saddles classified under paragraph 461, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable under the provision for saddles in paragraph 450, as claimed.

No. 31870. ROUGH TANNED PIGSKINS.-Protests 657472, etc., of John Neider et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Rough tanned pigskins claimed to be dutiable as rough leather were held properly classified under the provision for leather not specially provided for in paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 30843 (T. D. 33031) followed.

No. 31871.-LEATHER STRIPS-SOLE LEATHER.-Protest 627727 of F. Paracchini (San Juan). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Leather strips held properly classified under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. Hides held dutiable under the provision for sole leather in paragraph 451, as claimed.

No. 31872.-DOGSKIN MATS.-Protests 561197, etc., of Gravenhorst & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Dogskin and furs sewn into the form of mats, rugs, or crosses were held properly classified under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 31260 (T. D. 33194) followed.

No. 31873.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 650172-42483, etc., of Charlton Silk Co. et al. (Chicago), protests 664665, etc., of Jacob Adler & Co. (New York), and protest 650946 of L. Rubelli's Sons (Philadelphia). Opinions by McClelland, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 31874.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 451139, etc., of J. A. & W. Bird & Co. et al. (Boston), protest 509950 of Pietro Pellarin (Detroit), protest 317941 of George Borgfeldt & Co. (Newport News), protests 582790, etc., of A. Beller & Co. et al.. (New York), and protests 670665, etc., of Crocker Bros. et al. (Philadelphia). Protests abandoned.

BEFORE BOARD 2, MARCH 31, 1913.

No. 31875.-WILLOW BASKETS-FISHING TACKLE.-Protests 629951, etc., of Frank P. Dor Co. (Port Townsend). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Baskets of willow of the kind used by fishermen, classified as fishing tackle under paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as baskets of wood (par. 214). Abstract 29970 (T. D. 32847) followed..

No. 31876.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 670690, etc., of O. G. Hempstead & Son et al. (Philadelphia), and protests 621056, etc., of G. S. Bush & Co. et al. (Port Townsend). Opinions by Fischer, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

« PreviousContinue »