Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

deny highly artistic articles like that at bar classification as a work of art at a low rate of duty, when it is universally admitted that Congress always favors encouraging art in this country by permitting the importation of articles which are highly artistic in character either free of duty or at a low rate.

Were it not for the doctrine of legislative adoption of judicial interpretation, I could never agree to the classification of merchandise such as is at bar as a manufacture of glass, dutiable at 60 per centum. No one contends for a moment that it is not a work of art or that it is not a work of the fine arts. It is nowhere suggested that it is the work of the artisan or the glassmaker, or that the artist in this instance has, as in some of the decided cases, engaged in the work of the artisan. I do not recall, in my more than ten years of experience on this bench, that any article possessing more artistic merit, and more entitled to the 20 per centum rate of duty, has ever been passed upon by this court.

DISSENTING OPINION

GARRETT, Judge: I feel constrained to dissent in the instant case, notwithstanding the fact that I must recognize the nearness of its approach to the case of Frei Art Glass Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 132, T.D. 42214, upon the doctrine of which the majority rest their decision. I regard it I regard it as being readily distinguishable, upon the proven facts, from the earlier case of Petry Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 525, T.D. 39666, also cited in the majority opinion. I think it obvious from reading the majority and specially concurring opinions in the latter case that the evidence in that record was not sufficient to distinguish the mosaic there involved from the mosaics which had been involved in the various Treasury decisions therein cited. Hence it was evidently there felt by the court that the doctrine of legislative adoption of administrative practice should be applied.

That this court there confined its application of that doctrine to that particular case and arrived at the conclusion there reached because of the failure of the proofs to establish that the mosaic involved met the statutory requirements as to works of art for tariff purposes seems clear to me from the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion which is quoted in the opinion of the majority in the instant case.

I feel that the court there had in mind the possibility of importations such as that now before us, and recognized the fact that evidence might be presented, such as has here been presented, which would lead to a conclusion different from that there reached.

It is established here beyond peradventure, by uncontradicted testimony, that the mosaic involved is itself, in truth, a work of art

and that it is a faithful mosaic copy of a painting in oil by one of the world's master artists. The production of the copy required three years of intensive work under the direction and supervision of a recognized artist. I find it difficult to reconcile myself to the holding that its classification should be governed by an administrative practice, approved by judicial decisions predicated in each instance upon the particular facts shown in the particular case, which began with the classification of mosaics used principally for wall decorations, pavements, mantels, and the like.

Frankly, this seems to me to do violence to the generally known and historic disposition of the Congress relative to the promotion of cultural and esthetic tastes, and the developing of the finer spiritual emotions and impulses.

The testimony in this case relative to the character of this mosaic, and to the genuinely artistic character of the painting, of which I think it should, in the contemplation of the statute, be regarded as a copy, seems to me to be clearer and more definite than was the testimony relative to the somewhat analogous articles involved in the Frei Art Glass Co. case, supra, and, in any event, upon this record, I feel, most earnestly, that the judgment of the United States Customs Court should be affirmed.

(T.D. 46511)

Cotton velveteens

President's proclamation under section 336, Tariff Act of 1930, decreasing the rates of duty on cotton velveteens

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

Washington, D.C., July 5, 1933.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

There is published for your information and guidance the appended proclamation of the President, issued under the provisions of section 336 of the Tariff Act of 1930, decreasing the rate of duty on plain-back velveteens, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the entire surface, wholly or in chief value of cotton, from 62%1⁄2 percent ad valorem to 31 percent ad valorem, and decreasing the rate of duty on twill-back velveteens, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the entire surface, wholly or in chief value of cotton, from 621⁄2 percent ad valorem to 44 percent ad valorem. These decreases will be effective on and after July 24, 1933. FRANK DOW, Acting Commissioner of Customs.

966-34-VOL 64- -3

Decreasing rate of duty on cotton velveteens

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas under and by virtue of section 336 of title III, part II, of the act of Congress approved June 17, 1930 (46 Stat. 590, 701), entitled "An Act To provide revenue, to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the industries of the United States, to protect American labor, and for other purposes," the United States Tariff Commission has investigated the differences in costs of production of, and all other facts and conditions enumerated in said section with respect to, velveteens and velvets, including velveteen or velvet ribbons, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the entire surface, wholly or in chief value of cotton, being wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of and with respect to like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the principal competing countries;

Whereas in the course of said investigation a hearing was held, of which reasonable public notice was given and at which parties interested were given reasonable opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard;

Whereas the commission has reported to the President the results of said investigation and its findings with respect to such differences in costs of production;

Whereas the commission has found it shown by said investigation that the principal competing country for velveteens, wholly or in chief value of cotton, is Germany, and that the duties expressly fixed by statute do not equalize the differences in the costs of production of the domestic articles and the like or similar foreign articles when produced in said principal competing country, and has specified in its report the decreases in the rate of duty expressly fixed by statute found by the commission to be shown by said investigation to be necessary to equalize such differences; and

Whereas in the judgment of the President the decreased rates of duty on velveteens, wholly or in chief value of cotton, specified in said report are shown by such investigation of the Tariff Commission to be necessary to equalize such differences in costs of production;

Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do hereby approve and proclaim the following rates of duty found to be shown by said investigation to be necessary to equalize such differences in costs of production:

A decrease (within the limit of total decrease provided for in said act) in the rate of duty expressly fixed in paragraph 909 of title I of said act on plain-back velveteens, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the entire surface, wholly or in chief value of cotton, from 621⁄2 per centum ad valorem to 314 per centum ad valorem; and

A decrease in the rate of duty expressly fixed in paragraph 909 of title I of said act on twill-back velveteens, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the entire surface, wholly or in chief value of cotton, from 621⁄2 per centum ad valorem to 44 per centum ad valorem.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this 24th day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and fifty-seventh.

[SEAL.]

By the President:

WILLIAM PHILLIPS,

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

Acting Secretary of State.

(T.D. 46512)

Foreign currencies -Rates of exchange

Rates of exchange certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c), Tariff Act of 1930

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

Washington, D.C., July 8, 1933.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

The appended table of the values of certain foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, during the period from June 30 to July 6, 1933, inclusive, is published for the information of collectors of customs and others concerned.

(103512.)

FRANK DOW, Acting Commissioner of Customs.

(c),

Values of foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522
Tariff Act of 1930

[blocks in formation]

(T.D. 46513)

Raw sugar--Estimated duties

Estimated duties to be deposited on Cuban raw sugar on the basis of 96° polariscopic test under certain conditions

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

Washington, D.C.

You are hereby instructed that, on and after the date of publication of this notice in the TREASURY DECISIONS, estimated duties shall be taken on the entry of Cuban raw sugar on the basis of not less than 96° polariscopic test unless the invoice shows that the sugar is of a lower grade than that of the ordinary commercial shipment.

The instructions in T.D. 18332 of September 7, 1897, that estimated duties on such sugar shall be deposited on the basis of 95° test, when the test is not stated in the invoice and declared on the entry, are hereby revoked.

FRANK DOW, Acting Commissioner of Customs.

Approved June 30, 1933:

DEAN ACHESON,

Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

(T.D. 46514)

Antidumping-Tin-plate strips from Germany

The Secretary of the Treasury finds that the issuance of a finding of dumping covering tin-plate strips imported from Germany is not justified

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 1, 1933.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

Reference is made to a notice of suspected dumping issued by the appraiser of merchandise at Philadelphia, Pa., covering a shipment of tin-plate strips from Germany.

After an investigation and careful consideration of the evidence gathered, I have reached the conclusion that a finding of dumping with respect to tin-plate strips imported from Germany is not justified and must decline to issue such finding.

Appraising officers who have been withholding appraisements on tin-plate strips from Germany are authorized to appraise without regard to any question of dumping.

(81-1/2.)

DEAN ACHESON, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

« AnteriorContinuar »