Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion of laches on the part of the protestants. Under the circumstances, we hold that the appellants have a right to a hearing of their protest by this board.

The protest is fully supported by the evidence and is sustained by the board.

The collector's decision is reversed, and he is instructed to reliquidate the entries accordingly.

(13665-G. A. 1903.)

Foreign-caught fish imported in American vessels.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 17, 1892.

In the matter of the protests, 10811 b and 110926, of J. O. Proctor, jr., and J. G. Tarr & Bro., against the decision of the collector of customs at Gloucester, Mass., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain herring, imported per Schuyler Colfax, November 5, 1891, and Epes Tarr, November 25, 1891.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The facts in these cases are as follows: The fishing schooners Schuyler Colfax and Epes Tarr, American vessels, manned and equipped at Gloucester, Mass., and carrying stores, nets, fishing gear, and salt requisite for a full fare of fish, touched upon the coast of New Brunswick, and by an arrangement fished the weirs of native fishermen at that place, compensating them for the fish taken therefrom. The herring thus caught were put on board the schooners, in which vessels, after being salted and prepared for preservation, they were imported into the United States.

The collector at Gloucester, the port of entry, assessed duty upon the herring at one-half of 1 cent per pound, under paragraph 294, act of October 1, 1890.

The appellants claim free entry of the fish, under paragraphs 571 or 661 of said act.

The determination of these cases depends upon the meaning of the phrase "fish-the product of American fisheries." A construction has been placed upon this phrase used in previous acts which tends to show that fish caught by those on board these schooners with nets or other devices forming a part of their equipments would constructively be the product of an American fishery.

The conditions which existed in the cases ruled upon by the Secretary of the Treasury and reported in Synopses 353 and 6969, differ from these, as shown by the facts found by us in these cases. We here have to deal with certain fish the property of citizens of New Brunswickfish that were impounded in nets or weirs of foreign fisheries, and purchased, not caught, by the captains and crews of the schooners named. We make this further finding of facts: The fish in question are not the product of an American fishery, but are the product of a foreign fishery, said product imported in the United States in American fishing vessels.

These facts do not warrant us in deciding these cases in favor of the appellants. We therefore overrule their protests and affirm the collector's decision.

(13666-G. A. 1904.)

(1) Chemical glassware: Evaporating dishes. (2) Glass disks for surgical or dental mirrors.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892.

In the matter of the protest, 17075 b-7737, of J. W. Queen & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Philadelphia, as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain glassware, chemical and silvered, imported per Ohio, June 22, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

We find that the merchandise in question is of two kinds, namely: (1) Articles of thin glass similar in form to watch glasses or crystals, but which are designed for use in laboratories as evaporating dishes.

(2) Disks of cast, polished plate glass, silvered, and with ground edges, and which are intended to be used in the manufacture of dental or surgical mirrors.

The appellants claim that the glass evaporating dishes are dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 211, as watch glasses, and the silvered glass articles at 6 cents per square foot, and in addition thereto 10 per cent ad valorem, under paragraphs 116 and 118, N. T.

In accordance with the above findings, we overrule the protest as to the so-called watch glasses, and the collector's decision in assessing duty thereon at 45 per cent ad valorem as chemical glassware, under paragraph 107, N. T., stands.

The protest covering the disks of cast polished plate glass, silvered and ground, is sustained, and the collector's decision relative to these goods is overruled.

(13667-G. A. 1905.)

Wearing apparel-Cotton bibs, embroidered and plain.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892.

In the matter of the protest, 16960 b-9841, of J. V. Farwell Company, against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain cotton bibs, imported per Suevia, July 7, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The appellants here protest against the assessment of duty at 60 per cent ad valorem on certain cotton bibs classified by the collector as wearing apparel, embroidered by hand or machinery. In lieu of this rate, the appellants claim that the bibs are dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem as wearing apparel, or at 40 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of cotton not specially provided for. In support of their contention the protestants have this to say: "The articles contained in case 11501, No. 101, and case 11502, No. 103, are children's bibs, which we claim to be dutiable as cotton wearing apparel at 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 349, N. T. We beg to call your especial consideration to article No. 101, which is absolutely devoid of anything in the nature of embroidery, it being bound on the edges with what is commercially known as "braid" or "zigzag braid."

Two samples of the merchandise in question, viz, Nos. 101 and 105, were submitted to the board. An examination of these samples shows them to be bibs sloped and bound at the neck, and having a cotton loop and button at the back, by means of which they are to be fastened about the neck of a child. The bodies of these bibs are composed of cotton damask, not embroidered.

The sides of Exhibit No. 105 are surrounded with machine embroidery, while sewed to the bottom thereof is a double row of embroidery. Exhibit No. 101 is devoid of embroidery; it is bordered with zigzag braid, giving to the article the appearance of having scalloped embroidered edges.

In the opinion of the board it is not material that the body of these articles is not embroidered; it is with the finished bibs that we have to deal, and in some of them embroidery is a significant feature.

We find as facts as to the goods covered by protest

(1) They are cotton bibs and are wearing apparel.

(2) The bibs similar to Exhibit No. 101 are not embroidered by hand or machinery.

(3) The bibs similar to Exhibit No. 105 are embroidered by hand or machinery.

We overrule the collector's decision and sustain the protest as to the merchandise specified in our second finding of facts, and we overrule the protest and affirm the collector's decision as to the other goods.

(13668-G. A. 1906.)

Cotton tapes, not braids.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892. In the matter of the protest, 15957 6-9702, of The John V. Farwell Company against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain cotton tapes, imported per Teutonic, May 13, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

We find as facts that the merchandise in question is a woven cotton fabric about half an inch wide, put up in small bundles, and is commercially known as "tapes," and is not commercially known as, and is not, cotton braid.

The appraiser returned the goods as cotton braids, and the collector so classified them, and assessed duty thereon at 35 cents per pound, under paragraph 354, N. T. In a special report the appraiser holds to the correctness of his return on the invoice, giving as his reasons therefor

(1) That braids and tapes are synonymous terms.

(2) That braid is a descriptive rather than a commercial term. (3) The merchandise in question is ejusdem generis with the articles provided for in paragraph 354, N. T.

We can not agree with the appraiser in the conclusions reached by him as to the dutiable character of the goods in question.

Braids and tapes are, in our opinion, terms of commercial designation, and we hold in accordance with the facts in the case, that the claim of the appellants that duty should have been assessed upon the merchandise at 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 355, N. T., is well founded.

The protest is sustained.

(13669-G. A. 1907.)

Marble-So-called Mexican опух.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892.

In the matter of the protests, 30227 a and 33824, of G. L. Lender and Mexican Onyx & Trading Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain Mexican onyx, imported per Yumuri, June 1, 1892, Cienfugos, July 13, 1892, and Yucatan, July 6, 1892.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

The merchandise described on the invoices and on the bills of lading as blocks of marble, was assessed for duty at 65 cents a cubic foot as marble in blocks, and is claimed to be exempt from duty as a crude mineral, under paragraph 651, N. T.

The appellants base their claim upon the ground that the mineral in question is commonly known as Mexican onyx.

It is clear that if the merchandise is marble, as technically it undoubtedly is, and if it is known commercially as marble, we need not, in its classification, go beyond the provision for marble.

The blocks were evidently known as marble to the shippers who invoiced them, and to the transportation company which gave bills of lading for them. In the papers in the cases the term "Mexican onyx" was first used when entry was made at the custom-house.

The terms Mexican onyx and onyx marble are, perhaps, frequently and indiscriminately applied to the article in question, but when these designations are used, dealers know that the material spoken of is a species of marble resembling onyx and that it is not genuine onyx.

Marbles are distinguished by various names such as "Griotte," "Rouge Jasper," Sienna," "Verde de Preto." Similarly descriptive are the terms "Mexican onyx" and "Onyx marble."

We find that the merchandise consists of blocks of marble, and that it is known in trade and commerce as marble.

The decision of the collector is affirmed accordingly.

(13670-G. A. 1908.)

Earthenware bottle-stoppers with wire fastenings.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892.

In the matter of the protest, 16408 b-1472 of Chas. H. Wyman & Co., against the decision of the surveyor of customs at St. Louis, Mo., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain earthenware stoppers, imported per Stuttgart, June 25, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The goods in question are white earthenware stoppers, glazed. These stoppers in form somewhat resemble diminutive egg cups. Near the upper surface thereof is a perforation through which is passed a piece of iron wire bent so as to clasp the neck of a bottle.

Duty was assessed upon the merchandise at 55 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 100, N. T. The appellants claim that duty should have been assessed upon the articles at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 215, Ν. Τ.

This claim, in our opinion, is not well founded. We find as facts that the value of the iron wire in the merchandise in question is considerably less than that of the earthenware stoppers.

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

(13671-G. A. 1909.)

Charges, dutiable-Cost of coverings for wool.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892.

In the matter of the protests, 28173a and 28174a, of The American Trading Company, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain wool coverings, imported per America and England, January 12 and February 19, 1892.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The protests in these cases are against the inclusion in dutiable value

« AnteriorContinuar »