Value, dutiable-Continued.
IV. American selling price.-Where goods should have been ap-
praised at their American selling price and they have been appraised
at their foreign value, such appraisement is a nullity and the matter
is pending before the local appraiser for appraisement. United States
v. Alex. Murphy & Co. (1922)__
V. Cost of production.—The cost of production must appear from the
record made by the single appraising justice. United States v. Vande-
grift & Co. (1922)__
Where the record made before the single justice shows that the cost of
production was arrived at by estimating the yards of cloth contained in
certain imported samples, and multiplying that by the unit invoice price
per yard, of the cloth, and no other evidence of cost of production appears
in the record, held that cost of production had not been established.
United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (1922)___
The provision of paragraph 903 "when not less than 40 per centum of
the cloth is printed, dyed, or colored with vat dyes," when considered
with paragraph 904, should be construed to mean not less than 40 per
cent of the surface or surfaces which is or are printed. If but one side is
printed, that side only shall be considered; if both sides are printed,
both sides shall be considered. The words "the entire fabric and all
parts thereof," in paragraph 904, refer only to the surface or surfaces
when computing how much of the fabric is printed; in such case the
depth of the dyed material is immaterial. United States v. N. Erlanger,
Blumgart & Co. (1922).
Where the dutiable status of a fabric depends on the thread count or
quality of the threads or similar circumstances, then the entire fabric,
inside and out, must be considered. United States v. N. Erlanger,
Blumgart & Co. (1922).
Onions peeled and packed in brine are dutiable as vegetables packed
in brine. Budlong Pickle Co. v. United States. (1922).
Velveteen. See Similar.
Wall board, composed of a layer of wood, two layers of cement, and two of
paper, the wood being of chief value, is laminated, and is dutiable as a manu-
facture of wood, not specifically provided for, and not as wall board, not
laminated. United States v. O. M. Baxter (Inc.). (1922).
257
Warehouse, bonded.
Where goods have remained in a bonded warehouse longer than the
statutory three years' period, with duties paid and delivery permits
issued, on destruction of the goods by fire, importer is not entitled to an
abatement of duties. Zimmerman Co. v. United States. (1922) - - -
The Court of Customs Appeals does not pass upon the title to goods
destroyed by fire in a bonded warehouse. All it decides is the right of
the Government to proceed against the same, in rem, for its lawful
charges. Zimmerman Co. v. United States. (1922)__
Waste is refuse, or material that is not susceptible of being used for the
ordinary purposes of manufacture. T. E. Ash v. United States. (1922)_ 225
Cod-liver oil cake, being the residue of cod livers after the oil is
expressed, is refuse material, and waste. United States v. Wilfred Shade
Dogfish cake, being the residue of dogfish, from which the oil has been
expressed, is waste. United States v. Geo. S. Bush & Co. (1922)__
Cod-liver pressings are properly classifiable as waste, not specially
provided for. United States v. George J. Tarr Co. (1922)___
An inseparable mixture of 53.81 per cent of wool waste and 43.12 per
cent of artificial silk waste, with a negligible quantity of oil, is not duti-
able as a waste not specially provided for, but is dutiable as wool waste
and at the highest rate chargeable for any of its component parts.
United States v. M. Lobsitz.
Old jute bags originally used to cover bales of wool, split and cut on
the sides and unfit for any use as bags as imported, are properly classified
as waste bagging and not as bags. T. E. Ash v. United States.
Whisky.
When whisky is withdrawn from warehouse for consumption under sec-
tion 600 (a) of the revenue act of Feb. 24, 1919, the party withdrawing
must declare whether such whisky is withdrawn for beverage purposes
or not, and then, for the first time, the amount of duties may be ascer-
tained. The decision of the collector at that time is a protestable one
and, unless protest is filed within 30 days, the party withdrawing is con-
cluded from questioning the decision. United States v. Peter McQuade.
(1913), (1917), (1919).
Whisky, gauged when placed in warehouse, and then repacked under
section 562, Tariff Act of 1922, may be withdrawn for export without
payment of duty, even though on withdrawal it gauges less than when
entered. Alex. D. Shaw & Co. v. United States.
Wholesale quantity.
Where graduated discounts are allowed, according to amounts pur-
chased, on imported goods, each of these units of amount can not con-
stitute a wholesale quantity, for to do so would amount to a finding of
more than one wholesale quantity, all of which would fix different
foreign values. United States v. Powers and Rueff__.
A wholesale quantity, in fixing foreign value, is not alone a quantity
which may be sold at wholesale; it must also be a sale at wholesale, made
in the usual wholesale quantity. G. W. Pleissner v. United States ---- 507
The usual wholesale quantities are fixed by the amounts sold in a
major quantity of the wholesale sales. G. W. Pleissner v. United States 507
Where it is shown that 100 meters is the usual wholesale quantity
sold of certain imported cloth, in the foreign markets, that will be
taken as the usual wholesale quantity, although it is also shown that
lesser quantities are sold at wholesale, at higher prices. G. W. Pleissner
v. United States --.
Rags imported to be used as wipers, but which contain seams, but-
tons, and hooks and eyes, and, after preparation, will not sell as wipers,
are not properly classified as such. United States v. Katzenstein &
Keene, et al. (1922)_..
A marble mosaic floor, intended for use in a sanctuary, and used
for utilitarian purposes, there being no evidence that it is the work
of an artist, can not be considered as a work of art. Daprato Statuary
Co. v. United States.
Samples made up into books and separately, are not classifiable as
woven fabrics, but as samples. United States v. Vandegrift & Co.
Where a fabric has passed into the state of a completely manufactured
article, such as a blanket, it is no longer classifiable as a woven fabric.
United States v. Davies, Turner & Co.
A wreath, in its common meaning, is an ornamental or decorative
article which is usually circular in form and ready for the use of the
ultimate consumer. United States v. H. Bayersdorfer & Co. (1922)__ 43
Articles consisting of land moss laid on a circular framework of wood,
not sold or used as wreaths, but merely as the background for the
same, are not wreaths, moss, or plants, but are incomplete wreaths,
and should be classified as moss, manufactured. United States v. H.
Bayersdorfer & Co. (1922)- - .
Yavan glue. (See Coal-tar products.)
|