Page images
PDF
EPUB

and also that it is dutiable as a chemical compound or mixture under paragraph 3 of the same act.

In its brief here the Government relies mainly upon its claim that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 3 and asks that the judgment of the board be reversed. The importers contend for its affirmance.

No objection was made to the chemist's analysis being treated as evidence by the board and no question as to its competency is made here. The analysis is as follows:

[blocks in formation]

United States v. Embossing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220; T. D. 32536) and Bartley Brothers v. United States (ib., 363) seem to preclude the correctness of the collector's classification and are referred to for authority and reasoning on that subject. Not only this, but they seem to be authority for sustaining the action of the board, because we do not think the merchandise here is shown to be a chemical compound or mixture within the meaning of paragraph 3.

Chem

This polish is apparently composed of pulverized silica, alumina, and lime, saturated and mixed with the petroleum, oil, and fat named in the analysis, resulting in a thick, pasty substance, typical in appearance of similar articles of common everyday use. ically speaking, some of the component materials may be chemical compounds or the result of chemical mixture, but we are unwilling to say on the record here that a substance composed so largely of silica, commonly known to be crushed quartz-the sand of the seashore-alumina, one of the most abundant of earths (see Century Dictionary), and petroleum and saponifiable fat is a chemical compound or mixture under paragraph 3.

Tariff statutes are addressed to the common understanding and speak in the language of the common people, unless a different commercial meaning is shown, although, of course, recourse may be had when necessary to technical and scientific works to elucidate the meaning.

So construed, we do not think it ought to be held in this case that the metal polish is a chemical compound or mixture, as claimed. Emphasis is given to this conclusion by the fact that this issue was in no respect litigated before the board, and the reliance of the Govern

ment here is upon certain chemical formulas for several of the ingredients of the polish.

Without designing to here establish a precedent for other cases involving similar or like articles coming before us on a more complete record, we conclude that the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers should be, and it is, affirmed.

(T. D. 33528.)

Embroidered leather gloves.

UNITED STATES v. WERTHEIMER & Co. (No. 958).

1. "STRANDS" AND "CORDS."

It is plain in the record that there was a failure here to show that "strands" and "cords" as applied to gloves have a recognized commercial meaning.

2. GLOVES WITH NOT MORE THAN THREE THREADS OR STRANDS.

"Stitched or embroidered with not more than three single strands or cords" means the number of threads employed in stitching or embroidering the decoration on the backs of the gloves and not the lines or rows of decoration produced. The Paris point gloves of the importation are not stitched with more than three single strands and are not subject to the additional duty prescribed by paragraph 459, tariff act of 1909.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 31, 1913.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29215 (T. D. 32681). [Affirmed.]

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

Curie, Smith & Maxwell (Thomas M. Lane of counsel) for appellees.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BArber, De Vries, and MARTIN, Judges.

SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

The collector of customs held that certain leather gloves for women, imported at the port of New York, were stitched and embroidered with more than three single strands or cords and therefore subjected them to the additional duty of 40 cents for each dozen pairs provided for by paragraph 459 of the tariff act of 1909, which paragraph, in so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

459. *

*

*

On all gloves stitched or embroidered, with more than three single strands or cords, forty cents per dozen pairs.

The importers protested that the gloves were not stitched or embroidered with more than three single strands or cords and that therefore the merchandise was not subject to the additional duty exacted. The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed.

The ornamentation of gloves with more than three single strands or cords was first provided for by paragraph 458 of the tariff act of 1890, and ever since that time the meaning which should be given

to the words "strands" and "cords" as used by the lawmakers has been a fruitful source of controversy between the Government and importers of gloves.

In Wertheimer & Co.'s protest (T. D. 10910) the board had before it an embroidered glove which was described as having two strands, worked about three cords, made by stitching the material into a long, narrow, raised effect. These gloves were held to have more than three strands of embroidery. The principle of this decision was in effect affirmed by the Circuit Court in Wertheimer v. United States (68 Fed., 186) and again affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Wertheimer v. United States (73 Fed., 296). In the latter case the court said, among other things: "As the gloves in controversy have three decorations, each of which consists of more than a single strand or cord, they were properly subjected to the additional duty." What this glove really was is hard to determine from the description. It is fairly evident, however, that the Circuit Court of Appeals regarded each point of the glove as a decoration and each line of embroidery in the point as a strand. Strands and cords were apparently used by the court as synonymous terms, and the raised effect was evidently not considered as a cord. By virtue of this decision a three-point glove with more than a single line of embroidery in each point became a glove embroidered with more than three single strands or cords.

In Wertheimer v. United States (77 Fed., 600), Wheeler, Judge, evidently did not consider the raised effect a cord, and therefore disagreed with the definition of "cord" enunciated by the board in T. D. 10910. In the Wertheimer case, just mentioned, it was held that "two rows of single-cord embroidery between three lines or points of the material, raised up and sewed through and through, were not embroidered gloves with more than three single strands or cords. This decision was at outs with T. D. 10910, Wertheimer v. United States (68 Fed., 186) and Wertheimer v. United States (73 Fed., 296).

In Marshall Field & Co.'s protest (T. D. 12103) the board ruled on the classification of leather gloves with three smooth straight cords raised on the back, on each side of which cords were several lines of stitching, known as Orleans or Paris point. The collector classified these gloves as embroidered gloves, subject to the additional duty prescribed by paragraph 458, but the board held that neither the cord nor the stitching was embroidery. Following this decision, paragraph 458 of the tariff act of 1890, which read, "on all embroidered gloves, with more than three single strands or cords, 50 cents per dozen pairs," was by paragraph 445 of the tariff act of 1897 amended so as to read, "on all gloves stitched or embroidered,

with more than three single strands or cords, 40 cents per dozen pairs." Under paragraph 445 the board held, in the protest of H. Robinson (T. D. 19945), that gloves with three rows of embroidery on the back, having the appearance of 3-plait crochet work and produced by the needle with only one cord or strand of thread, as shown by the stitching on the inside of the glove, were not stitched or embroidered with more than three strands or cords. Here cord and strand were used by the board in the sense of thread, and it followed of course that "strand'' no longer meant necessarily a line of stitching and neither did "cord" refer to the raised effect. The classification in this case was, therefore, made to turn not on the lines of decoration, but on the number of threads which made them. This decision was affirmed by Wheeler, District Judge, in United States v. Robinson (124 Fed., 1013), in which it was said:

These are gloves with three rows of embroidery, each of a single cord, but passing more than once throughout the decoration * * *. The addition is to cords and not to turns or directions of the same cord. Here are but three cords.

Referring to the gloves of the Wertheimer case in 68 Fed., 186, the court said:

The gloves "had more than three single strands or cords in the embroidery," while these have not.

That statement was correct in so far as the finding of the board was concerned, but as that finding was predicated on the premise that strands and cords meant the lines of decoration and not the number of threads which produced the decoration, the learned judge's decision, in its effect, can hardly be viewed in any other light than a disaffirmance of the theory adopted in the case to which he refers. The Attorney General advised that no further proceedings would be directed, and no appeal was taken from the decision of Judge Wheeler, just cited. The Treasury Department, in T. D. 21996, notified the collector of customs of this state of the matter and authorized a refund of the excess duties exacted. So far as we can discover there was no further litigation as to the classification of gloves stitched or embroidered with more than three single strands or cords until 1904. In February of that year gloves with three single parallel lines or rows of stitching or embroidering were subjected by the collector of customs at New York to the additional duty. The importers protested, and on the hearing trade testimony was introduced by the Government showing, first, that a cord was an embellishment on the back of a glove produced by creasing the leather longitudinally and then oversewing it with a silk thread; second, that a strand was a row of embroidery; third, that a cord was stitched and a strand embroidered. The board held that 75044-VOL 24-13-63

"strands" and "cords" as used in paragraph 445 did not mean strands or cords of thread, but the line of "stitching producing a cord or a strand of embroidery." (T. D. 25038.) This decision was to all intents and purposes a return to the doctrine laid down in the first cases decided and ignored the fact that those cases had been overruled by the board itself in T. D. 19945 and by the Circuit Court in United States v. Robinson (124 Fed., 1013).

That meant, of course, renewed litigation, and a new case was presented in which the board asserted its adhesion to the doctrine announced in T. D. 25038 and overruled the importers' protests. Protest of Passavant & Co., Abstract 8396 (T. D. 26753). The Passavant case was appealed to the Circuit Court, and Platt, Judge, distinctly held that the board should have followed the rule prescribed by T. D. 19945 and United States v. Robinson, and finally accepted by the Government. Accordingly the decision of the board was reversed. Trefousse v. United States; Passavant v. United States (144 Fed., 708); affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (154) Fed., 1005). The Trefousse case was followed by United States v. La Fetra (172 Fed., 297), in which case the Circuit Court announced in effect that the Government having failed to make out a trade. understanding of "strands" and "cords" at variance with the meaning fixed for those terms by the Trefousse case, the decision there must stand. The gloves in the La Fetra case had nine separate rows of stitching and were held not to be stitched or embroidered with more than three single strands or cords. An appeal from the decision in the La Fetra case was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that the Government had failed to make out a commercial designation and that the meaning given by the Trefousse case to "single strand" would not be disturbed, although if it were a matter of novel impression more weight might have been given to the Government's contention.

Prior to the passage of the tariff act of 1909, and as a result of this prolonged litigation, it was therefore finally determined, first, that "stitched or embroidered with not more than three single strands or cords" meant the number of threads employed in stitching or embroidering the decoration on the backs of the gloves and not the lines or rows of decoration produced; and, second, that at the time the La Fetra case was finally disposed of that meaning had not been varied by the general, definite, and uniform understanding of the trade. With that judicial determination before it, Congress definitely refused to amend paragraph 445 of the tariff act of 1897 so as to make the rows or lines of stitching the test for additional duty and reenacted paragraph 445 of the act of 1897 as paragraph 459 of the tariff act of 1909. Under the circumstances this court does not feel át liberty to give to the provision here under consideration an inter

« PreviousContinue »