« PreviousContinue »
BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 20, 1913.
No. 31136.-ROTTEN FRUIT.-Protests 413542, etc., of Rojas Hutcheson Co. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
Protests sustained claiming that certain portions of importations of fruit were so decayed upon arrival as to constitute a nonimportation.
No. 31137.-ROTTEN POTATOES REGULATIONS.-Protests 655682, etc., of Maynard & Child (Boston). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
For the reason that the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury (T. D. 30023) were not complied with, protests overruled claiming an allowance for rotten potatoes.
No. 31138.-WOOL-NAPHTHALIN-TARE.-Protests 655543, etc., of Robert Crooks Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
Protests sustained claiming an allowance of additional tare for the naphthalin packed in bales of wool from China. G. A. 7304 (T. D. 32068) followed.
No. 31139.—Leakage of Wine.-Protests 623169, etc., of International Despatch et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
Protests overruled on the authority of Aurola v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 340; T. D. 32077) and Abstract 25960 (T. D. 31720) as to leakage of wine in casks or barrels.
No. 31140.-STILL WINE-PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL.-Protest 608846 of F. H. Shallus (Baltimore), protest 646069 of W. N. Proctor Co. (Boston), protest 66336442944 of August Ziegenheisen (Chicago), and protests 642161, etc., of F. M. Deanaro et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A.
Protests overruled as to the percentage of alcohol in still wine. Vandegrift v United States (T. D. 32462) followed.
No. 31141.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 631360, etc., of Arguimbau & Ramee (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
Protests unsupported; overruled.
BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 21, 1913.
No. 31142.-SAWED VEGETABLE IVORY.-Protest 628021 of German-American Button Co. (Rochester). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.
Vegetable ivory sawed into slabs without further advancement, classified under paragraph 464, tariff act of 1909, held free of duty as vegetable ivory in its natural state (par. 596). Zanmati v. United States (153 Fed. Rep., 880; T. D. 28054) and G. A. 6596 (T. D. 28177) followed.
No. 31143.-LITHOGRAPHIC ROller Leather.-Protests 584163, etc., of Hall Printing Press Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.
Lithographic roller leather classified under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable under the provision for grain, buff, and split leather in paragraph 450, as claimed.
No. 31144.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 452303, etc., of R. Mayer & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.
No. 31145.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protest 668863-43157 of Fernando Alvarez & Co. (Chicago).
BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 21, 1913.
No. 31146.-MOUSSELINE BANDS-MANUFACTURES OF SILK.-Protests 455927, etc., of Heyliger & Raubitscheck et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Merchandise classified as woven silk fabrics under paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable under paragraph 403. United States v. Wertheimer (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 515; T. D. 32249) and United States v. Caesar (T. D. 32533) followed. Protests sustained in part.
BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 21, 1913.
No. 31147.-AMASAKE.-Protest 559369 of Okada & Ichida (San Francisco).
WAITE, General Appraiser: A Japanese commodity invoiced as "amasake" has been assessed under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909. It is claimed to be dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 480. The testimony describes the substance as made by combining a rice yeast in the proportion of about 30 per cent with boiled rice in the proportion of about 70 per cent.
The sample in evidence shows it is put up in small hermetically sealed tins and is used as a drink among the Japanese.
Paragraph 252, under which this article has been assessed, provides specifically for "bean stick or bean cake, miso, and similar products." Miso was described in the board decision passing upon it (G. A. 6244, T. D. 26938) as a Japanese product manufactured from beans, with the addition of some rice or oats, the whole being salted and subjected to prolonged boiling, and which is used by the Japanese in making soups. Miso is now specifically provided for, as quoted above, in connection with "similar products." We are of the opinion that the amasake here in question may reasonably be considered a similar product, and thus come within the purview of this paragraph. We therefore affirm the assessment and overrule the protest.
No. 31148.-RYE BREAD-SWEETENED BISCUIT.-Protests 581182, etc., of Finland Steamship Co. Agency et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.
A large, flat, disk-shaped biscuit or cracker made of rye flour, classified as sweetened biscuit under paragraph 244, tariff act of 1909, was held not sweetened within the meaning of the statute. Protests sustained.
No. 31149.-SHOOKS.-Protests 595335, etc., of R. H. Holland et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
On the authority of G. A. 6972 (T. D. 30312) protests overruled claiming certain shooks to be free of duty as of American manufacture.
No. 31150.-WOOL-NAPHTHALIN-TARE.-Protests 603901, etc., of W. E. Allum et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.
On the authority of G. A. 7304 (T. D. 32068) protests sustained in part claiming allowance of 6 pounds per bale additional tare for the naphthalin packed in bales of wool from China.
No. 31151.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 648253, etc., of H. P. Finlay & Co. et al., and protests 619416, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. et al. (Boston), protests 603283, etc., of Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. et al., protests 618118, etc., of A. E. Rittwager et al., and protests 655021, etc., of Warner Sugar Refining Co. et al. (New York), protests 610049, etc., of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. et al. (Philadelphia), and protests 641206, etc., of W. A. Ross & Bro. (Port Townsend). Opinions by Somerville, G. A.
Protests unsupported; overruled.
BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 23, 1913.
No. 31152.-SAPPHIRE BEARINGS.-Protests 525398, etc., of General Electric Co.
(Boston). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A.
Pieces of sapphire intended for use as bearings for electric meters held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7209 (T. D. 31519) and G. A. 7402 (T. D. 32957) followed. Protests sustained in part.
No. 31153.-POCKET MIRRORS.-Protests 626568, etc., of W. C. Horn Bros. & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A.
Small mirrors inclosed in imitation leather cases fitted with toilet accessories held properly classified under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909.
No. 31154.-DOUBLETS.-Protests 609381, etc., of L. Heller & Son et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A.
On the authority of G. A. 7388 (T. D. 32778) doublets were held properly classified under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909.
No. 31155.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 555669-39630, etc., of Charlton Silk Co. et al. (Chicago), and protests 622380, etc., of B. E. Levy et al. (New York). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A.
Protests unsupported; overruled.
No. 31156.-Belting Leather-Buff LeathER.-Protests 558953, etc., of Leigh & Butler (Boston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.
Following Abstract 24562 (T. D. 31207) and Abstract 26921 (T. D. 31940) the board held certain leather to be dutiable under the first provision of paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.
BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 23, 1913.
No. 31157.-ARTIFICIAL SILK FABRICS-WRONG CLAIM.-Protests 226268, etc., of William H. Stiner & Son (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
For the reason that the importers failed to make the proper claims, certain protests on artificial silk fabrics were overruled.
No. 31158.-WOVEN FABRICS OF ARTIFICIAL SILK AND COTTON.-Protests 320351, etc., of C. A. Auffmordt & Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
Woven fabrics of artificial silk and cotton classified under paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as follows: (1) By similitude to colored cotton cloth at the appropriate rates under the provisions of paragraphs 306 to 309, Abstract 25812 (T. D. 31675) followed; and (2) as manufactures of cotton (par. 322), G. A. 6110 (T. D. 26607) followed. Protests sustained in part.
No. 31159.-MALINES NETS.-Protests 462882, etc., of Mills & Duflot et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
Protests sustained on the authority of Abstract 24701 (T. D. 31255), wherein it was held that Malines nets were dutiable under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909.
No. 31160.-MOUSSELINE BANDS.-Protests 474719, etc., of H. A. Caesar & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
On the authority of United States v. Wertheimer (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 515; T. D. 32249) and United States v. Caesar (T. D. 32533) mousseline bands were held dutiable as manufactures of silk under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1909, and appliquéd bands under paragraph 402. Protests sustained in part.
No. 31161.-ARTIFICIAL SILK YARN.-Protests 576765, etc., of Raden Bros. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
Protests sustained as to artificial silk yarn on the authority of United States v. Straus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 395; T. D. 32164).
No. 31162.-SILK FABRICS-INVOICE WEIGHTS.-Protest 584037-39852 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A.
Protest overruled as to the weight of silk fabrics dyed in the piece.
No. 31163.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 622116, etc., of Billwiller Bros. et al., protests 194970, etc., of J. S. Plummer & Co. et al., protests 417926, etc., of Reichenbach & Co. et al., protests 654111, etc., of S. Stern et al., and protests 477810, etc., of P. K. Wilson & Son et al. (New York). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled.
BEFORE BOARD 3, January 23, 1913.
No. 31164.-SEAWEED-FISH PASTE.-Protest 616638 of Asia Co. (Los Angeles). Opinion by Waite, G. A.
Merchandise invoiced as "seaweed" and classified as prepared vegetables under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909, was found to be fish paste, dutiable under paragraph 253. Abstract 30984 (T. D. 33055) followed.
(T. D. 33121.)
AMERICAN EXPRESS Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 870).
1. GELATIN IN "SHEETS."
To determine what is a "sheet" in a given case, the particular facts of that case are to be considered; and the facts here showing the merchandise to be edible gelatin with irregular edges and uneven surfaces do not make it clear that the article is properly classifiable as sheets of gelatin. The doubt must be resolved in favor of the importer and the goods are dutiable as gelatin under paragraph 23, tariff act of 1909.
2. BOARD'S FINDING.
The board's finding of facts will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evidence; but here the finding that the gelatin was in sheets was based on an erroneous construction of the law itself and so does not fall within the rule.
United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 20, 1913.
APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7320 (T. D. 32223). [Reversed.]
Comstock & Washburn for appellant.
William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Charles D. Lawrence, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States.
Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:
The merchandise in this case is gelatin. It was assessed by the collector, and the Government here claims it to be dutiable as
"gelatin in sheets," at 35 per cent ad valorem under the last clause but one of paragraph 23 of the tariff act of 1909, while the importer contends that it is dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem as "gelatin" under the first two clauses in said paragraph. There is no dispute as to the value of the merchandise.
The paragraph reads as follows:
23. Gelatin, glue, isinglass or fish glue, including agar-agar or Japanese isinglass, and all fish bladders and fish sounds other than crude or dried or salted for preservation only, valued at not above ten cents per pound, two and one-half cents per pound; valued at above ten cents per pound and not above thirty-five cents per pound, twenty-five per centum ad valorem; valued above thirty-five cents per pound, fifteen cents per pound and twenty per centum ad valorem; gelatin in sheets, emulsions, and all manufactures of gelatin, or of which gelatin is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; glue size, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.
The majority opinion of the Board of General Appraisers affirmed the assessment of the collector, one member thereof dissenting.
Counsel upon both sides proceed upon the theory that, although evidence as to commercial or trade designation was introduced before the board, there is here no such issue, and we so treat the case.
It is established that this gelatin is edible and that edible gelatin is in various forms, as ground, flaked, shredded, or in the form of this importation, and possibly in other forms.
As we understand from the record, the form the gelatin assumes in this importation is the highest priced edible gelatin on the market and that it is somewhat more expensive to produce than in the specified edible forms.
The importation is in thin pieces, practically transparent, about 8 inches long and 3 inches wide; the edges are irregular and uneven and the surfaces have thereon dents or depressions on one side accompanied by corresponding elevations or protuberances on the other, and are marked with practically straight intersecting lines crossing the entire piece, at angles, obtuse at one edge and acute at the other, to the general line of the sides of the strips, which results that each surface presents a diamond-like figured appearance. The dents and depressions are generally found at the intersection of these cross lines and result in a surface that is not smooth, regular, or entirely flat. The record suggests that this surface condition serves no purpose in the use of the gelatin, but is the result of the appliances used in making these pieces from larger bodies thereof. It appears that the chief and perhaps the only use made of gelatin in this form is for food purposes.
The issue narrows down to this, Does the term "gelatin in sheets," as used in the paragraph, in the common meaning or understanding thereof, fairly describe the merchandise here? If so, the contention must be settled in favor of the Government; if not so, the importer must prevail.