The Board of General Appraisers sustained the decision of the collector classifying the merchandise under this clause, and appellant appeals to this court and contends that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under the catch-all provision of paragraph 230 of said act, which is in part as follows: * * * and all glass or manufactures of glass or paste, or of which glass or paste is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for, 50 per centum ad valorem. The importer contends that the case of United States v. Fondeville, supra, requires that the merchandise be classified under the latter paragraph. In the Fondeville case, the importation was in part under the law of 1909 and in part under the law of 1913. The pertinent provisions of the act of 1909 (pars. 98 and 109) were regarded as similar to the pertinent provisions of the act of 1913 (pars. 84 and 95), and are as follows: 98. (1909) * * * all articles of every description, including bottles and bottle glassware, composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise; * * * 109. (1909) * * and all glass or manufactures of glass or paste or of which glass or paste is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, forty-five per centum ad valorem. 84. (1913) * * * all articles of every description, including bottles and bottle glassware, composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise; 95. (1913) * * * * * and all glass or manufactures of glass or paste or of which glass or paste is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, 30 per centum ad valorem. The court in the Fondeville case, supra, held that the merchandise was not composed wholly or in chief value of blown glass, and therefore was not dutiable under the provision concerning articles composed "wholly or in chief value of glass, blown either in the mold or otherwise," but that it fell under paragraph 109 of the act of 1909, and under paragraph 95 of the act of 1913, as a manufacture of glass or of which glass is the component material of chief value. The only material change in the two corresponding paragraphs of the act of 1922 from the previous enactments is in paragraph 218, where the words "or partly blown" are added. The importer contends that there is such a thing known in commerce as a single glass product which is made by a combination of blowing and some other process, and that Congress here meant to say that for the importation to fall under paragraph 218 the component material of chief value must be in blown glass, or in chief value of a glass which is made by the combination process, and cites as an illustration gauge glasses which were under consideration by the Board of General Appraisers in G. A. 5364 (T. D. 24534). The board there found that the gauges were made by the combination process of blowing and pulling. It will be observed, however, that regardless of the process used in making the gauges, the board held. that since they were in part blown they would be regarded as blown glassware. Since their holding was not questioned, it is fair to presume that it has been accepted as the correct construction. Το We can not agree with the importer's contention in this case. do so would be to render the words "partly blown" meaningless, since partly blown, when used in the only sense pointed out by the importer, has been construed to mean nothing more than blown. It was argued by the importer before this court that to give the words "partly blown" any other construction than that for which they contended, would be to eliminate the words "in chief value of." This position is not sound for the reason that whether the glass in the article is blown or whether only a part of the glass in the article is blown, Congress must have meant that the article as a whole, whether composed of wood, leather, or other material, and glass, must be in chief value of glass, and that if it was in chief value of blown glass, it would fall within paragraph 218; and if it was in chief value of glass a part of which was blown it would also fall under paragraph 218. Congress did not intend by the words "partly blown" to refer to a process in which the product or a part of it was made by a combination of efforts known to the glass trade, but it did mean by the words "partly blown" to refer to one of the parts of the component material, glass. It is fair to assume that Congress in enacting paragraph 218 of the act of 1922 desired to change the wording of the section in view of the fact that it had been construed that before the product of the glass-blower's pipe should receive the higher rate of duty, a showing was required that the blown glass portion of the article must be in chief value. They evidently intended that if the article was in chief value of glass, and any part of it was blown, that it should have the higher rate of duty. It must be conceded that they could have framed the paragraph in language that would have expressed this view more clearly, but the courts must not impute to a legislative body the doing of a useless and vain thing unless the written words will not permit of a construction which will give them a different effect. We think it not inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the words used to hold that Congress meant to include in paragraph 218 all articles not specifically provided for elsewhere the chief value of which was glass, if any part of the glass was blown. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. FEIBLEMAN & Co. (INC.) v. UNITED STATES (No. 2319).1 CONSTRUCTION, PARAGRAPHS 920 AND 1430, TARIFF ACT OF 1922-MOSQUITO NETS. In paragraph 920, tariff act of 1922, the language "made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine" modifies all the articles named in the paragraph, and merchandise not made on such machine is not classifiable thereunder. The effect of the paragraph is to except from the operation of paragraph 1430 such articles as are named in both paragraphs if made on such machine, but not otherwise. Consequently mosquito nets not made on such machine are dutiable as "nets" under paragraph 1430, and not as "nets" under paragraph 920.-G. A. 8679 (T. D. 39764). United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 9, 1924. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8679 (T. D. 39761). [Affirmed.] Irving Washburn for appellant. William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Edward J. Neary and Abraham H. Goodman, special attorneys, of counsel), for the United States. [Oral argument, December 11, 1923, by Mr. Washburn and Mr. Neary.] Before MARTIN, Presiding Judge, and SMITH, BARBER, and BLAND, Associate Judges; HATFIELD, Associate Judge, participating in the decision by agreement of counsel. BLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The decision of the board in this case covers the facts and the law completely. There has not been given a single plausible reason why the position of the Government and the decision of the board is incorrect. This court does not feel that it can add anything to the very well considered and accurately worded opinion of the board and will adopt the language of the Board of General Appraisers as its decision, which is as follows: The merchandise in question consist of mosquito nets, which were assessed for duty by the collector as cotton net or nettings at the rate of 90 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragranh 1430, tariff act of 1922. The importers claim that the merchandise is properly dutiable as nets or nettings at the appropriate rate, according to the number of points or spaces to the inch, but not less than 60 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 920 of said act. A claim is also made in the protest that the merchandise is properly dutiable as manufactures in chief value of cotton at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 921 of said act, but that claim is not now relied on by the importers. Counsel for the importers and the Assistant Attorney General have stipulated and agreed in writing that the protest be submitted "upon the papers and sample accompanying the protest herein, without hearing, together with the briefs of the parties." The record before us shows that the merchandise in controversy consists of mosquito nets made on a plain net machine rather than on a Nottingham lace-curtain machine. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the merchandise falls within the provision for "nets and nettings" in paragraph 1430 of said act, as assessed, or whether it is properly dutiable 1 T. D. 40030. under the provision for nets or nettings in paragraph 920 of said act, as claimed by the importers. The competing paragraphs read as follows: 1430. Laces, lace window curtains, burnt-out laces, and embroideries capable of conversion into burnt-out laces, nets and nettings, embroidered or otherwise, veils, veilings, flouncings, all-overs, neck rufflings, flutings, quillings, ruchings, tuckings, insertings, galloons, edgings, trimmings, fringes, gimps, ornaments; braids, loom woven and ornamented in the process of weaving, or made by hand, or on any braid machine, knitting machine, or lace machine; and all fabrics and articles composed in any part, however small, of any of the foregoing fabrics or articles; all the foregoing, finished or unfinished (except materials and articles provided for in paragraphs 920, 1006, 1404, 1406, and 1424 of this act), by whatever name known, and to whatever use applied, and whether or not named, described, or provided for elsewhere in this act, when composed wholly or in chief value of yarns, threads, filaments, tinsel wire, lame, bullions, metal threads, beads, bugles, spangles, or products of cellulose provided for in paragraph 1213 of this act, 90 per centum ad valorem. ** * 920. Lace window curtains, nets, nettings, pillow shams, and bed sets, and all other articles and fabrics, by whatever name known, plain or Jacquard figured, finished or unfinished, wholly or partly manufactured, for any use whatsoever, made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine, and composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, when counting not more than five points or spaces between the warp threads to the inch, 14 cents per square yard; when counting more than five such points or spaces to the inch, three-fourths of 1 cent per square yard in addition for each point in excess of five; and in addition thereto, on all the foregoing articles in this paragraph, 25 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That none of the foregoing shall pay a less rate of duty than 60 per centum ad valorem. The Government contends that inasmuch as the nets in question were made on a plain net machine they are excluded from the provisions of paragraph 920, as that paragraph is restricted to nets and other articles made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine, and that therefore the nets in question are properly dutiable under paragraph 1430, as assessed. Counsel for the importer contends that notwithstanding the fact that the nets in question were not made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine, they are, nevertheless, dutiable under said paragraph 920, for the reason, as he claims, that the phrase "made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine" appearing in that paragraph does not modify or relate to the nets or nettings and other articles specified by name therein, but has reference solely to the provision in that paragraph for "all other articles and fabrics, by whatever name known, plain or Jacquard figured, finished or unfinished, wholly or partly manufactured, for any use whatsoever." In other words, he contends that the phrase "made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine" should be eliminated from paragraph 920 so far as the provision for "lace window curtains, nets, nettings, pillow shams, and bed sets" is concerned and the paragraph, as to those articles, construed to read: Lace window curtains, nets, nettings, pillow shams, and bed sets, and composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, when counting not more than five points or spaces between the warp threads to the inch. * * * We find nothing in the phraseology of paragraph 920 to justify the construction urged by counsel for the importer. The statute is unambiguous, and it must be understood and applied according to the natural import of the language used. In its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction the statute contains a specific provision for a class of articles and fabrics when made on a certain machine, to wit, the Nottingham lace-curtain machine. Such articles and fabrics, if not so specifically provided for, would fall under the provisions of paragraph 1430. Congress, however, saw fit to make a special provision for such articles in paragraph 920, and expressly excepted them from the provisions of paragraph 1430. There is nothing in the punctuation or grammatical construction of paragraph 920 tending to limit the words "made on Nottingham lace-curtain machine," as counsel for the importer contends. On the con trary, we think the construction he seeks to have placed upon the statute, if sustained, would defeat the manifest purpose of Congress. As we have already stated, the articles in controversy were made on a plain net machine. As such they are properly dutiable as nets or nettings at the rate of 90 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1430, as assessed. It is suggested that to sustain this assessment on mosquito nets results in levying a high rate of duty on an inferior article. The statute, however, as we have said, is unambiguous, and in such a case the remedy is with Congress and not with the courts. The protest is accordingly overruled, and the decision of the collector is affirmed. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. MARKS CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES (No. 2235).1 1. CONSTRUCTION OF TREATIES. Treaties are to be construed liberally and according to the intention of the parties thereto; and the language used in them is to be interpreted by the same process of reasoning and by the same rules of construction as are applied to the interpretation of contracts between individuals. 2. CONSTRUCTION, ARTICLE 2, CUBAN RECIPROCITY TREATY OF 1902-"PRODUCT OF THE SOIL OR INDUSTRY." In article 2, Cuban reciprocity treaty of 1902, according a duty discount to any "product of the soil or industry of the Republic of Cuba," the word industry was not used in a general sense, but to distinguish a product of manufacture, industrial arts, or mechanical activities from a product of agriculture, or from that which owes its existence to growth and development in the soil. Sugar cane is a product of the soil, but sugar, raw or refined, is a product of industry. 3. CUBAN SUGAR, REFINED IN CANADA. Without deciding whether or not merchandise must be imported directly from Cuba in order to entitle it to the duty discount'given by article 2 of the Cuban reciprocity treaty of 1902 to products "of the soil or industry" of Cuba, Cuban sugar refined in Canada and imported from there is the product of Canadian and Cuban industry, and not being exclusively Cuban, can not claim the duty discount. United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 9, 1924. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 45479. [Affirmed.] Sylvanus George Levy for appellants. William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General, for the United States. [Oral argument October 17, 1923, by Mr. Levy and Mr. Hoppin.] Before MARTIN, Presiding Judge, and SMITH, BARBER, BLAND, and HATFIeld, Associate Judges. HATFIELD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise the subject of this appeal is refined sugar. It was imported into this country from Canada and assessed for duty T. D. 40031. |