BEAVER CO. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1999).1 WOOD PULP-PULPBOARD. Mechanically ground wood pulp, in sheet form, imported in rolls, the sheet being of a width and thickness especially suitable for the manufacture of a particular kind of pulpboard does not, by reason of its form, become "pulpboard" within the meaning of that term in paragraph 320, tariff act of 1913, but remains "mechanically ground wood pulp" within the meaning of that expression in paragraph 649. United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 2, 1920. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8280 (T. D. 38093) [Reversed.] Gerry & Wakefield for appellants. Bert Hanson, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Balduin, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States. [Oral argument Dec. 18, 1919, by Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Baldwin.] Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, Barber, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Certain merchandise imported at the port of Buffalo, N. Y., by the Beaver Co., and classified by the collector of customs as pulp board not laminated, was assessed for duty at 5 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 320 of the tariff act of 1913, which paragraph in so far as pertinent to the case reads as follows: * 320. * * pulpboard in rolls, not laminated, board, 5 per centum ad valorem. * * * common paper-box The importer protested that the merchandise was free of duty either as crude paper stock under paragraph 566, or as wood pulp under paragraph 649 of said act. That part of paragraph 566 of the free list under which importer claimed free entry, reads as follows: 566. Paper stock, crude, of every description, * used chiefly for paper making. Paragraph 649 of the free list is as follows: * 649. Mechanically ground wood pulp, chemical wood pulp, unbleached or bleached, and rag pulp. The board of general appraisers overruled the protest and the importer appealed. The testimony shows that to produce merchandise, such as that imported, spruce, balsam, aspen or poplar logs or other woods, are forced against a grinder by hydraulic pressure and are thereby shredded into small particles of fiber. The ground product diluted with water is screened in order to remove slivers, chips and other undisintegrated material and is then passed to a cylinder covered 1 T. D. 38258 (38 Treas. Dec., 73). with fine wire, which by centrifugal force extracts 97 per cent of the Additional moisture is removed from the screened mass of fiber either by sending it through a drying machine or by submitting it to hydraulic pressure. Finally, the material so dried is put up in rolls ready for shipment and in that condition constitutes the commodity imported. All of the witnesses for the importer agree that to convert the material imported into pulpboard of any kind it must be sized, and the testimony is positive that laminated pulpboard is produced by treating two or more sheets with chemicals and pressing the sheets into one by running them through a machine called a laminator. According to these witnesses the merchandise in issue was neither sized nor laminated and was nothing more than dried wood pulp. William T. Bannister, a witness for the Government, admitted that pulpboard must have enough sizing in it to hold it together, and that, as a rule, to the best of his knowledge, "some sizing was always put in." In his opinion, however, all of the samples of the importation in evidence, and particularly Exhibit 5, had some sizing. Samples of the merchandise were submitted, by the Assistant Attorney General, to the Government chemist for analysis and a report as to whether they contained clay, sulphite, or sizing, or anything other than mechanically ground wood pulp. The chemist reported that the samples were mechanical wood pulp, and that samples 3, 4, 6, and 7 did not contain rosin size, starch, dextrin, or mineral sizing. He found that sample 5 did not contain rosin size, starch, or dextrin, but had 0.32 per cent of silicate of alumina-that is to say, clay. We think it fair to infer from the evidence that the merchandise in question is a wood pulp advanced to the extent and in the sense that it is made in the sizes and of the thicknesses specially required by pulp-board manufacturers. Advanced though it be, however, the commodity has not been sufficiently processed to carry it into the category of "pulp board," and the clear weight of the evidence justifies us in concluding that whatever its size or thickness, it is ground wood reduced to a pulp and then screened and dried. Such an article is a dry wood pulp, and a dry wood pulp which, as the evidence establishes, differs from other dry wood pulp in the one particular that it has been given dimensions peculiarly suitable for the manufacture of a particular kind of pulp board. Of course, if prior to the act of 1913 the trade had given the name of pulp board to certain forms, sizes, or thicknesses of dried-wood pulp, that commercial designation would determine classification of the merchandise regardless of its composition and of the fact that its components were identical with those of other dry wood pulps of a form, size, or thickness which excluded them from the term pulp board as understood in the trade. We do not think, however, that any such trade understanding has been established by the evidence. The best that can be said of the testimony as to commercial designation is that it is conflicting, and that the witnesses who testified that merchandise like that imported was bought and sold in the trade as pulp board did not know the components of the merchandise sold by them, or if they knew that, the chemical analysis establishes that they did not know and probably could not know the components of the goods which were the subject of protest. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. WAKEM & MCLAUGHLIN v. UNITED STATES (No. 1982).1 1. TEXTBOOK. The term "textbook" applies only to such books as either set out in their text the facts or principles of some branch of learning which is to be taught to students, or to such as are prepared with especial introductions, notes, glossaries, spacings, or other editorial apparatus," which particularly adapt them for the use of students or instructors engaged in classroom work as a class apart from more general readers.— Dutton & Co. v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460; T. D. 35987). The fact that a book is used in educational institutions does not make it a textbook within the meaning of that term in paragraph 426, tariff act of 1913. 2. EVERYMAN'S LIBRARY. Volumes of a series planned to embrace 1,000 titles, being reprints of the world's classical literature in fiction, poetry, history, biography, economics, essays, chil dren's books, etc., do not become textbooks because, on account of their compactness, cheapness, and convenient form, they are largely used by teachers and students as supplementary or illustrative reading or in classrooms. They are not admissible free of duty as textbooks, under paragraph 426, tariff act of 1913, but are dutiable as books not specially provided for under paragraph 329.-Dutton & Co. v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460, T. D. 35987). United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 2, 1920. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 43135. [Affirmed.] Sharretts, Coe & Hillis for appellants. Bert Hanson, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin, special attorney, counsel), for the United States. [Oral argument Dec. 19, 1919, by Mr. Sharretts and Mr. Baldwin.] Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: of In the case of Dutton & Co. v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 460; T. D. 35987), the question before us was whether some 150 titles of the well-known series of books called "Everyman's Library" were entitled to free entry as textbooks under paragraph 426 of the tariff act of 1913, hereinafter quoted. 1 T. D. 38259 (38 Treas. Dec., 75). Seven exhibits were submitted as representative of the 150 titles and the argument upon both sides assumed that these 150 titles in turn were fairly representative of the entire series. The exhibits were Motley's Dutch Republic, three volumes. Shelley's Complete Poems, two volumes. Browning's Poems, two volumes. It was held that the merchandise was not entitled to free entry. T. D. 37781 (G. A. 8195) was another case involving the same question heard by the Board of General Appraisers. This covered 26 different titles of Everyman's Library, among which were 17 titles involved in the case now before us, hereinafter enumerated, and in addition The Motion of the Heart and Blood, by William Harvey. Experimental Researches in Electricity, by Michael Faraday. The Pilgrim Fathers, by John Masefield. Conquest of Mexico, by William H. Prescott. The History of Rome, by Theodor Mommsen. Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government, by John Stuart Mill. A Discourse on Method, by René Descartes. History of Rome, by Charles Merivale. The board held that all the books were essentially of the same class as the ones before this court in the Dutton case and overruled the protest. The case now before us involves some 10,900 volumes, all cloth bound, of Everyman's Library, imported at different times. They were held dutiable by the collector under paragraph 329, which so far as material is as follows: 329. Books of all kinds, bound or unbound, in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem. * not specially provided for Some nine protests were filed, claiming free entry under paragraph 426, which extends that favor to Books and pamphlets printed wholly or chiefly in languages other than English; also books and music, in raised print, used exclusively by the blind, and all text. books used in schools and other educational institutions; * The protests were overruled by the Board of General Appraisers, and the case comes here on the importers' appeal. The brief of importers' counsel classifies these books under various headings, indicative of the study or subject in the teaching of which it is claimed the respective books are textbooks, and we arrange these titles substantially as set forth in the brief. Philosophy and Ethics. Plato's Republic. Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. Theory of Vision. Principles of Human Knowledge, by Berkeley. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Gibbon. Counsel argue that some of the books are entitled to be regarded as textbooks on more than one of the above subjects. To illustrate, Froissart's Chronicles is claimed to be a textbook on the subject of English literature as well as history. Some of the above five subjects were subdivided in the brief, but as arranged above sufficiently present importers' contention. It is stipulated among other things that the books before us are identical in every respect with those bearing the same titles in T. D. 37781 and that the record taken therein shall be admitted in evidence and made part of the record in this case. We understand that pursuant thereto the only testimony considered below consisted of that which was offered in T. D. 37781. One result of importing into the record here the evidence taken in T. D. 37781 is that there is before us considerable testimony which does not relate to any books involved in this case. It aids nevertheless in disclosing the very wide and comprehensive scope of importers' theory as to what are textbooks. Counsel for importers say they do not ask the court to modify or reverse any of the reasoning or findings in the Dutton decision but rather to apply the principles established there to the books of these importations in the light of the present record and claim that each of these books is a textbook within the rule of that case and that each book presents a separate and distinct issue. As we view the case, however, it is unnecessary to discuss each volume separately. |