Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of certain coverings of wool, which was assessed for duty at 32 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 385 of the new tariff act.

The collector states in his report that there being no separate charge for packing it was assumed that, as the packing charges were included in the extended price, the goods were weighed in a packed condition and that the weights specified in the invoice were in fact the gross weights; and hence, in the liquidation of the entries, a comparison was made between the gross weight as returned by the United States weigher, and the invoice weights and duty was assessed accordingly. Section 19 of the act of June 10, 1890, provides that in assessing duty on ad valorem duty paying merchandise, there shall be included the value of all cartons, etc., and coverings of any kind, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing such merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States.

These cases are analogous to G. A. 1589, where it was remarked that "the question is not one of tare, but of putting the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States.”

We find as facts:

(1) That the merchandise was imported under the new tariff act. (2) That the weight upon which duty was assessed, in excess of the invoice weight, represents the coverings used about the merchandise whose value, in the absence of any separate specific statement upon the invoices thereof in regard thereto, must be presumed to be the same as the wool which they cover.

On these findings of fact, we hold that there is no error in the action of the collector. The protests are accordingly overruled, and the decision of the collector in each case is affirmed.

(13672—G. A. 1910.)

Ground antimony ore.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1892. In the matter of the protests. 30159 a-12951, of Lehn & Fink, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain ground antimony ore, imported per Egglestone Abbey, April 1, 1892.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

We find, upon the report of the United States chemist at this port, that the merchandise is ground antimony ore. It was assessed for duty at 20 per cent, under section 4. N. T., and is claimed to be exempt from duty, as crude antimony ore, under paragraph 485, N. T.

We find that the article in question is not crude ore, and the assessment of duty is affirmed.

(13673-G. A. 1911.)

Horsehair carpets.

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

In the matter of the protest, 31576 a-17118, of J. B. Brewster & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain horsehair carpets, imported per Servia, June 14, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The subject of this protest is carpeting composed of hair, cotton, and perhaps a small percentage of jute and flax. This carpeting has an extra loop, warp, or pile uncut, and is in manner of fabrication similar to Brussels carpeting. The foundation of the merchandise, both in the warp and weft, is cotton dyed black in the yarn. The surface pile, or extra warp thereof, is composed chiefly if not exclusively of different colored hair, not dyed or artifically colored.

The appraiser returned the merchandise as a manufacture of horsehair, jute, linen, and cotton, horsehair chief value, and in a supplemental report to the collector says "The merchandise is a pile fabric and assimilates to tapestry Brussels carpeting." The collector assessed duty upon the merchandise at 28 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 403, N. T.

The appellants claim that it is dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 407, N. T.

In the opinion of the board the claim of the appellants is well founded. Paragraph 403 provides for tapestry Brussels carpets, figured or plain, and all carpets or carpeting of like character or description printed on the warp or otherwise. The merchandise in question is not tapestry Brussels carpet nor is it printed on the warp or otherwise. It is intended, no doubt, to be put to the same use as tapestry Brussels carpet, viz, as a floor covering, but is not otherwise similar thereto.

Paragraph 407 provides for carpets of wool, flax, or cotton, or composed in part of either, not specially provided for. This paragraph is in the nature of a blanket clause designed to cover all carpets not specifically mentioned, composed wholly or chiefly (in value) or an appreciable part in quantity of wool, flax, or cotton.

We find as facts on the face of the papers, and from the exhibits

(1) That the merchandise is carpeting composed of animal hair and cotton, hair the component material of chief value, cotton a substantial part.

(2) It is not tapestry Brussels carpets, nor carpeting of like character or description, printed on the warp or otherwise.

(3) Said carpeting is not denominatively provided for in the present

act.

These facts justify the appellants' claim, and we sustain their protest and overrule the collector's decision.

(13674-G. A. 1912.)

Chinese trousers.

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

In the matter of the protest, 15601b-785, of Hop Lung Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Baltimore as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain Chinese trousers, imported per Gaelic, April 23, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in question consists of Chinese trousers, which the appellants claim are made of cotton and down, or feathers, and as such dutiable under paragraphs 355, 349, or 443, N. T.

The exhibit in the case was submitted to the chemist in charge of the laboratory connected with the United States appraisers' department at New York for analysis. That officer reports that he has examined the articles and they are found to consist for the most part of wool of the Donskoi quality, hard spun or twisted. The wool is the material greatly preponderating in weight and value over the other components.

We find as facts that the merchandise is clothing, ready-made, composed wholly or in part of wool, and hold that duty was properly assessed thereon at 49 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 396, N. T. The protest is overruled, and the collector's decision is affirmed.

(13675—G. A. 1913.)

Marbles--Ballot balls not.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 22, 1892.

In the matter of the protest, 15923b-3309, of B. Pasquale & Sons, against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain so-called "marbles," imported per railroad, April 11, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The articles in question are claimed by the appellants to be toy marbles, dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 436, N. T.

The appraiser reports that these articles are not toys, but are glass ballot balls (white and black.) Duty was assessed upon the merchandise by the collector at 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 108, N. T.

The appraiser in a special report says, if the classification of the merchandise under paragraph 108 is not correct, then the ballot balls are properly dutiable under paragraph 101, N. T. The naval officer concurs in the correctness of the appraiser's special report, and expresses the opinion that the merchandise is dutiable at 55 per cent, under paragraph 101, N. T.

Samples of the white balls in question were submitted to the board. An examination of these samples shows them to be imperfect spheres of porcelain about one-half of an inch in diameter, and weighing considerably less than china or glass marbles of a corresponding size. The surface of these articles is irregular and in spots is rough and. sandy.

The board finds

(1) That the goods are not commercially known as marbles, but are bought, sold, and commercially known as ballot balls.

(2) That said ballot balls were not designed for and are not chiefly used by children in play, but are commonly used by adults for election. purposes.

Without deciding how the articles in question should be classified for duty, we overrule the protest, and the collector's decision stands.

(13676-G. A. 1914.)

Protests, insufficient.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 22, 1892. In the matter of the protests, 35946 a and 35947 a, of A. A. Vantine & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain so-called embroidered panels, turkesas, etc., and paper ornaments or toys, imported per coastwise, August 20, 1892. Opinion by SHARPE, General Appraiser.

We find as facts in these cases

(1) That no merchandise of the character described in these protests appears upon the entry therein specified, nor upon the invoice upon which such entry is based, nor do the case numbers specified in these protests correspond to the numbers of the cases, or any of them, appearing on said invoice.

(2) That an entry of a number different from that described in these protests was made by the same importers on the same date as that above mentioned, which entry contained case numbers corresponding to those specified in the protests, and was based upon an invoice which contained

merchandise of the descriptions given in these protests, which merchandise, in the absence of proof to the contrary, we find was correctly returned by the appraiser.

The collector held that, as the merchandise described in the protests did not appear upon the entry designated therein, the protests were void.

The protestants appeared by counsel at the hearing of the case and admitted the facts to be as stated in our first finding, but contended that the collector had sufficient information upon which to base his action upon the merchandise, by reason of the other entry mentioned in our second finding of fact.

The law and customs regulations contemplate that protests shall state specifically and distinctly the ground of objection to the assessment of duty, specifying the paragraph or section of the tariff act under which it is claimed that duty should be assessed, and shall describe the merchandise according to its commercial character and invoice designation and the particular number of the outer case or covering in which it is contained.

The office of the protest is to point out to the officers of the Government the precise errors of fact or of law which render the exaction of the duty unauthorized. (Davies v. Arthur, 13 Blatch., 34.)

These protests do not conform to the above requirements in any particular. They describe the merchandise as consisting of satin panels, turkesas, portieres, scarfs, and doilies, which are claimed to be dutiable as manufactures of silk, and of paper ornaments, which are claimed to be dutiable as manufactures of paper, and designate the same as contained in cases 667 to 674 inclusive, in entry No. 134282, whereas the goods to which said entry related consisted of cotton carpets and rugs contained in cases 1149 to 1167 inclusive: and it was found that the goods described in the protests were included in entry No. 134184, and were contained in cases numbered 666, 677, 669, 671, 672, 675, and 677, and not in cases 657 to 674 inclusive as stated in the protests. The protests are overruled and the collector's action affirmed.

(13677-G. A. 1915.)

Free entry of samples.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 22, 1892.

In the matter of the protests, 35733 a, etc., of Voss & Stern et al., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain samples imported per the vessels and on the dates named in annexed schedule.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The questions involved in the list of appended cases are all of an analogous character. The protests all embrace the contention that

« AnteriorContinuar »