« PreviousContinue »
grades of perfumery manufactured by the same firm with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol.
Two sworn schedules of the manufacturer, dated October 11, 1912, are transmitted herewith for filing in your office.
T. D. 32450 is also amended to provide for the filing of supplemental sworn schedules, and upon verification of such schedules drawback on the perfumery covered thereby may be allowed under the said decision.
SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(T. D. 33084.)
JAMES F. CURTIS,
Drawback on aloxite grains or powders, wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, and cloth.
Drawback on aloxite grains and powders, wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, and cloth manufactured by the Carborundum Co., of Niagara Falls, N. Y., with the use of imported crude aloxite.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 13, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed, under section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on aloxite grains or powders, wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, and cloth manufactured by the Carborundum Co., of Niagara Falls, N. Y., with the use of imported crude aloxite.
A special manufacturing record shall be kept which shall show, in addition to the usual data, the quantity of imported crude aloxite used in the manufacture of each lot of grains or powders, the weight of the grains or powders obtained therefrom, the value of the wastes incurred, if any, and where the grains or powders are used in the manufacture of aloxite wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, or cloth, such record shall show the size, number, and kind of each article manufactured in the condition as exported, the kind and quantity of domestic material, and the quantity of aloxite grains or powders used in the manufacture of each lot of articles of the same kind and size. An abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry.
The quantity of imported crude aloxite which may be taken as a basis for payment of drawback may equal that appearing in the exported articles, with an addition for such waste as shall be shown by the abstract from the manufacturing record to have occurred in the process of converting the imported crude aloxite into grains and powders.
The sworn abstract of the manufacturer, dated November 18, 1912, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.
JAMES F. CURTIS,
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Niagara Falls, N. Y.
(T. D. 33085-G. A. 7414.)
Children's cotton hose and half hose imported from Spain, made from fabrics knitted on two different types of machines and shaped by cutting and seam stitching, are dutiable under paragraph 327, tariff act of 1909, providing for "stockings, hose, and half hose, made on knitting machines or frames, wise specially provided for."
* not other
United States General Appraisers, New York, January 7, 1913.
In the matter of protests 596199, etc., of Sue's de Frontera et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Juan, P. R.
Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers). COOPER, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of children's cotton hose and half hose imported from Barcelona, Spain, and entered at the port of San Juan, P. R. Duty was collected thereon at the applicable rates under the provision in paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, for "stockings, hose, and half hose, selvedged, fashioned, narrowed, or shaped wholly or in part by knitting machines or frames," and it is claimed that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 327, providing for "stockings, hose, and half hose, made on knitting machines or frames, * not otherwise specially
The merchandise was classified by the collector at San Juan under paragraph 328 as being hose shaped in part on flat machines, but having the partial appearance of cut hose similar to those referred to in T. D. 31753.
The testimony on behalf of the importers shows that the hose were made from knitted fabrics; that two different types of knitting machines were used, the top part of the stocking being made on a rib knitting machine, and the bottom part on a circular type machine; that the shaping was done by the process of cutting the fabric, pushing it back on the needles, and stitching the seams on a sewing machine.
From the description of the process of manufacturing these stockings, it appears that they are not "selvedged, fashioned, narrowed, or shaped wholly or in part by knitting machines," and we accordingly hold the merchandise dutiable under paragraph 327, at 30 per cent ad valorem.
The protests are sustained.
(T. D. 33086-G. A. 7415.)
Paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, provides inter alia for "hats, bonnets, and hoods composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, grass, * * or manila hemp," if untrimmed, at 35 per cent ad valorem, and if trimmed, at 50 per cent ad valorem. Held, That trimmed hats, the bodies of which are composed wholly or in chief value of one of the materials named in said paragraph, are dutiable thereunder as trimmed hats, irrespective of the value of the trimming as compared with the value of the article without the trimming.-G. A. 5734 (T. D. 25440) cited; Rheims v. United States (160 Fed., 925; T. D. 28783) distinguished.
United States General Appraisers, New York, January 13, 1913.
In the matter of protest 478242 of Lord & Taylor 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, General Appraiser: An importation of trimmed hats was assessed for duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the provision for silk wearing apparel in paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909. The importers contend that these hats are dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem as trimmed straw hats under paragraph 422 of said act, which paragraph reads as follows:
422. Braids, plaits, laces, and willow sheets or squares, composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, osier, rattan, real horsehair, cuba bark, or manila hemp, suitable for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, or hoods, not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, fifteen per centum ad valorem; if bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, twenty per centum ad valorem; hats, bonnets, and hoods composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, osier, rattan, cuba bark, or manila hemp, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if trimmed, fifty per centum ad valorem. But the terms "grass" and "straw" shall be understood to mean these substances in their natural form and structure, and not the separated fiber thereof.
Certain of the hats marked A on the list (Exhibit 1) furnished by the importers' witness have bodies composed of straw. A portion of such hats marked in addition with the letter X are, in their trimmed condition as imported, composed wholly or in chief value of straw. As to the hats so marked with the letter X, we do not understand that the Government now claims that the classification as made by the collector should be sustained. But as to the hats marked with the letter A only, the Government contends that notwithstanding the bodies of these hats may be composed wholly or in chief value of straw, they do not fall within the provisions of paragraph 422, for the reason that as completed articles-trimmed hats-they are not composed in chief value of any of the materials specified in the paragraph. The importers, on the other hand, contend that all of the trimmed hats having bodies composed wholly or in chief value of straw are properly dutiable under paragraph 422, and that this is so irrespective of the component material of chief value in the hat as trimmed. The
issue, therefore, is whether a hat composed wholly or in chief value of one of the materials specified in paragraph 422 and which, when untrimmed, is admittedly dutiable under that paragraph at 35 per cent ad valorem, is, when trimmed, to be excluded from the provision therein for trimmed hats if the trimming is of greater value than the body of the hat.
Under the corresponding paragraph (409) of the tariff act of 1897 the board held that hats, the bodies of which were composed wholly or in chief value of straw or one of the other materials named in the paragraph, were dutiable under the provision therein for trimmed hats irrespective of the value of the trimming as compared with the value of the article without the trimming. In re Schiff, G. A. 4525 (T. D. 21502); In re Hummel, G. A. 5734 (T. D. 25440).
The provision in the act of 1897 was for hats "composed of" straw, chip, etc., while in the act of 1909, it is for hats "composed wholly or in chief value" of straw, chip, etc., and the Government contends that the words "wholly or in chief value" were inserted for the purpose of nullifying the effect of the decisions of the board above cited and preventing the classification under this paragraph of trimmed hats unless straw was the component material of chief value in the trimmed hat. To support this contention reliance is placed upon the decision of this board in Rheims's case, G. A. 6411 (T. D. 27541), which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Rheims v. United States (160 Fed., 925; T. D. 28783).
We do not consider that case controlling of the issue here involved, for it will be observed that the language of the provision there under consideration (par. 432, tariff act of 1897) was materially different from paragraph 422 of the present act. The former paragraph fixed rates of duty, according to the value of the articles, upon hats, trimmed or untrimmed, composed wholly or in chief value of fur, etc., and, as we stated in our opinion in the Rheims case
The only trimmed hats provided for in this paragraph are those composed wholly of fur or those in which fur is the component material of chief value in the completed articles.
If Congress had intended that only such trimmed straw hats should be classified under paragraph 422 as are composed in chief value of straw in their completed condition as trimmed hats, we think they would have adopted language similar to that found in paragraph 446, tariff act of 1909, which corresponds with paragraph 432, tariff act of 1897. This they did not do. As paragraph 422 now stands it provides, among other things, a rate of duty of 35 per cent ad valorem for hats composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, etc., and if such hats-that is, hats composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, etc. are trimmed the rate of duty is fixed at 50 per cent ad
We do not think the presence of the words "wholly or in chief value" as found in that portion of the paragraph relating to hats should lead to any other conclusion than that which we reached in the Hummel case, supra. The Government calls attention to the fact that this decision was brought to the notice of Congress (Notes on Tariff Revision, p. 554), and it is claimed that the words "wholly or in chief value" were introduced into paragraph 422 for the expresspurpose of nullifying the effect of that decision and preventing the assessment under the straw-hat provision of trimmed hats, which, as completed articles, were not in fact composed in chief value of straw. When we turn to the Notes on Tariff Revision, we find (p. 554) that nearly all the notes relating to paragraph 409 consist of the citation of decided cases relating to the braid provision of this paragraph. Under the caption "composed wholly of" reference is made to the case of Schmitz v. United States (146 Fed. Rep., 127; T. D. 27000), wherein straw lace sewed with cotton thread was held, by reason of the presence of this cotton component, not to be composed wholly of straw, and hence not dutiable under this paragraph. The case of United States v. Schiff (145 Fed., 1023; T. D. 27227) is also cited. In that case the merchandise was excluded from classification under paragraph 409 because of the fact that the ends of the braids or plaits were tied together with cotton thread, the court holding that this circumstance did not affect the status of the articles as being "composed wholly of" straw, on the ground that the cotton thread was only for temporary use to prevent the ends of the braids or plaits from unraveling. Following these citations, and under another caption entitled "trimmed hats," the decision of the board in Hummel's case is cited without comment.
The Committee on Ways and Means had before it the information contained in this compilation, and we think it is significant of the legislative intent that in reporting the tariff bill to the House the committee amended only that portion of the paragraph which relates to braids, plaits, etc. The amendment reported by the committee in express terms provided for those articles when composed in chief value of straw, chip, etc., as well as for those composed wholly of such materials. No such amendment was at that time introduced into the provision in the paragraph for hats. On the floor of the House the chairman of the committee (Mr. Payne) offered an amendment to this paragraph which was apparently designed only to put in better form the amendment as originally made by the committee. Although we may not inquire as to what individual members of Congress suppose a bill to mean, or what induced them to vote for or against the passage of a law, we may consult the history of the act itself and the reports of committees having it in charge in order to reach a conclusion as to legislative intent.