Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Dredge No. 8," assessed for duty at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 177 of the act of August 28, 1894, but claimed to be entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 387 of said act as an article manufactured in the United States, exported to Canada, and returned to this country without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means. The case was heard on the 2d day of January, 1895, argued by counsel, and submitted on the record and the evidence contained in certain affidavits.

From the evidence it appears that Dredge No. 8 was built in the United States in 1882; that it was exported to Canada in 1885; that in the year 1889, having from constant use become worn and depreciated in value, it was repaired at a cost of about $2,000; and that it was, for the next succeding five years, kept in constant use, and finally, in 1894, returned to the United States.

The provision for the reimportation into the United States of domestic articles in the act of March 3, 1883, is contained in paragraph 649 of said act, which is in part as follows:

Articles the growth, produce and manufacture of the United States, when returned in the same condition as exported; * * * but proof of the identity of such articles shall be made under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The language of this statute is explicit―so plain that it needs no construction; and while operative, it was strictly construed by the Treasury Department and the courts, both as to the condition of the article subject of controversy and as to proof of the identity of the article exported and reimported in each case (G. A. 389 and the decisions therein collated). But in the act of October 1, 1890, there is a material modification of the letter and spirit of the act of 1883 relating to the condition of the exported and reimported domestic article. For the words "When returned in the same condition as exported," in the act of 1883, the act of 1890 substitutes the words "When returned after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means.'

[ocr errors]

It may well be that the strict construction placed upon the clause in the act of 1883 by the Treasury Department and the courts moved the Congress to relax the rule in the act of 1890, as it clearly does, since its language is susceptible of a far more liberal construction than the corresponding language of the act of 1883; but the relaxation of the rule is confined to the point we have considered. The rigid rule of the act of 1883 on the point of proof of identity is retained in the act of 1890; · and the act of August 28, 1894, under which this importation was made (paragraph 387), so far as it relates to the subject under consideration, is a reproduction of the act of 1890.

We find as facts

(1) That the dredge in controversy was imported under the act of August 28, 1894.

(2) That it is a manufacture of the United States and was exported from this country to Canada in 1882.

(3) That it is now reimported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other

means.

(4) That the proof of the identity in the record as required by the statute is sufficient.

On these facts and the law we have no difficulty in holding that appellant is entitled to the relief sought under the exemption clause in paragraph 387 of the free list.

The protest is sustained, and the decision of the collector is reversed, with an appropriate order of reliquidation.

(15673-G. A. 2854.)

Sugar from Holland-No Bounty Paid on.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 16, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 24473 b-4, of F. H. Shallus, against the decision of the collector of customs at Baltimore as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Ohio, and entered September 1, 1894.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

The protest is against the assessment of one-tenth of a cent per pound additional duty under paragraph 1821, act of August 28, 1894, upon sugar exported from Holland.

We find that Holland does not pay directly or indirectly a bounty on the export of sugar.

The protest is sustained accordingly.

[Withheld for review.]

(15674-G. A. 2855.)

American Shooks-Orange Boxes Made from, not Free.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 16, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 25018-b 44, of James J. Haynes, against the decision of the collector customs at Corpus Christi, Tex., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain mer chandise, imported per railroad, and entered October 16, 28, and 24, 1894.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The merchandise under consideration consists of wooden orange boxes of American manufacture, which were originally exported in the form of shooks or boxes "knocked down," with all the parts complete, so as to be ready to be put in the form of boxes suitable for the importation of fruit. These boxes were assessed for duty at the rate of 15 per cent

ad valorem under the proviso of paragraph 216 of the tariff act of 1894, the importation having been made since the 28th of August last, when said act went into legal operation.

Paragraph 216 reads as follows:

216. Oranges, lemons, and limes, in packages, at the rate of eight cents per cubic foot of capacity; in bulk, one dollar and fifty cents per one thousand; and in addition thereto a duty of thirty per centum ad valorem upon the boxes or barrels containing such oranges, lemons, or limes: Provided, That the thin wood, so-called, comprising the sides, tops and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes of the growth and manufacture of the United States, exported as orange and lemon box shooks, may be re-imported in completed form, filled with oranges and lemons, by the payment of duty at one-half the rate imposed on similar boxes of entirely foreign growth and manufacture.

It is claimed by the importer that the boxes in question are exempt from duty under paragraph 387 of said tariff act (of 1894), which puts on the free list "casks, barrels, carboys, bags, and other vessels of American manufacture, exported filled with American products, or exported empty and returned filled with foreign products, including shooks when returned as barrels or boxes," the proof of identity of such articles being required to be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as stated in said paragraph.

This proof seems to have been made, and no contention arises as to the question of identity. The Board is of the opinion, however, that the boxes are not free under said paragraph 387, but were properly assessed for duty under paragraph 216, at one-half the rate imposed on orange boxes of foreign growth or manufacture. The former paragraph is generic in its terms, and would include orange and lemon boxes of the kind described except for the fact that those articles are more specially provided for by name in the proviso of the latter paragraph as orange and lemon boxes made from shooks of such boxes, of American manufacture, and originally exported as shooks, which term is ordinarily understood to include not only staves and heads of barrels and hogsheads, but also boards for boxes prepared or fitted for use and put up in a compact form for convenience of transportation. The term, as applicable to this kind of merchandise, is defined in the proviso added to said paragraph 216 as "the thin wood, so-called, comprising the sides, tops and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes." This proviso did not occur in the tariff act of 1890, but was added, by way of amendment to paragraph 301 of said act, in framing the present law. It evinces a clear intention on the part of Congress to except orange and lemon boxes of the particular description mentioned from the operation of the more general terms of paragraph 387, under which the protest claims.

For these reasons, giving precedence to the more narrow and minute descriptive term, the protest is overruled and the collector's decision. affirmed.

(15675-G. A. 2856.)

Usual Coverings-Iron Tanks Containing Molasses not Free as.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 16, 1895.

In the matter of the protest, 25204 b-3844, of Welch & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain iron tanks imported by S. C. Allen, October 16, 1894.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in question consists of 55 iron tanks, which are of foreign manufacture, and, being imported October 16, 1894, were assessed for duty as manufactures of metal under paragraph 177 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894.

We find as matter of fact that these tanks were originally imported filled with glycerin, then exported filled with acids, and afterwards reimported, on the day above specified, filled with molasses. It does not appear from the record whether the molasses was of the grade or quality made dutiable in paragraph 1824 of said act, or of the kind made free of duty in paragraph 557. Nor do we consider this material, as the protest makes but one claim, viz, that these coverings are entirely exempt from duty on the ground that they are the usual coverings in which such merchandise was commenly imported, and that the duty had once been paid on them at the time of the first importation.

We find that the tanks are uuusual coverings, designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, and are therefore subject to the duty imposed by virtue of the provisions of section 19 of the Customs Administrative Act. There is no contention that the articles are of American manufacture so as to come within paragraph 387, or section 19 of the present tariff act (1894). The courts have uniformly held that merchandise must ordinarily pay duty each time it is imported or reimported, and that the payment of duty on the occasion of its first importation does not justify its exemption from again paying duty on a second or any subsequent importation; and the practice of the customs officers has long been in harmony with this established legal principle.

The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed.

(15676-G. A. 2857.)

Sheet Steel in Strip, and Corset Steel.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 17, 1895. In the matter of the protests, 26138 a-10896, etc., of R. H. Wolff & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain sheet steel in strips and corset steel, imported per the vessels and entered at the dates specified in the annexed schedule.

We find

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

(1) That Messrs. R. H. Wolff & Co., Ltd., imported into the port of New York, on divers days between October 6, 1890, and the 27th day of August, 1894, as shown in the annexed schedule, quantities of steel,

upon which duty was assessed at 1.3 cents per pound under the provisions of paragraph 140 of the act of October 1, 1890, and which the importers claim in their protests to be dutiable at 1.2 cents per pound under paragraph 146 of said act.

(2) That said steel is cold-rolled steel in strips exceeding 80 feet in length, more than 1 inch and less than 8 inches in width, and thinner than 20 wire gauge, to wit, from 24 to 30 wire gauge, it being twentyfive one-thousandths of an inch thick or thinner, and valued at 3 cents or less per pound.

(3) That the same is sheet steel in strips, drawn through dies or rolls, and is manufactured in the same manner, and in dimensions is like that lately passed upon by the United States circuit court of appeals for the first circuit, In re Wetherell, except that the value is 3 cents per pound or less, while in the case mentioned the steel was valued above 4 and not above 7 cents per pound. In the Wetherell case the merchandise was found to be sheet steel in strips and held to be dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 148.

This steel is precisely covered by value and description in the provisions of paragraph 140 as "other steel, valued at three cents per pound or less, eight inches or less in width, *** thinner than number twenty wire gauge, one and three-tenths cents per pound." There is no limitation to the thinness of the steel in paragraph 140, but in the second proviso of paragraph 148 there is a provision which covers steel of this description when it is drawn to a thickness of 0.025 of an inch or thinner, and fixing the duty thereon at 50 cents ad valorem. This last-mentioned proviso contains no limitation as to value, width, or condition, but embraces all sheet steel in strips 0.025 of an inch thick or thinner, and does not conflict with paragraph 140, for the rates per pound provided in paragraph 140 apply to all hoop, band, or scroll iron of the value and dimensions therein described, as also to sheet steel in strips of said dimensions and value, if thicker than 23 wire gauge, or 0.025 of one inch.

The steel embraced in these importations is therefore specially provided for in the act, and is not subject to the rates provided for in paragraph 146, as claimed.

The protests are overruled.

(15677-G. A. 2858.)

Salt-water Fish-Salmon not.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 17, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 24201b-29, of E. Dillingham, against the decision of the collector of customs at Ogdensburg, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, salmon, imported per railroad, and entered September 15, 1894.

[blocks in formation]

(1) That Mr. E. Dillingman imported into the port of Ogdensburg,

« AnteriorContinuar »