Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

States v. Foscato (6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 15; T. D. 35251), and United States v. American Express Co. (id. 36; T. D. 35275), are also cited in this connection.

Many of these authorities are excellently reviewed in Ishimitsu v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186; T. D. 38963), in the opinion by Barber, Judge. There, in summing up, it is said:

there still remains the idea that to constitute a manufacture of a thing, or a thing manufactured, it must appear that something has been produced so changed or advanced in condition from what it was before being subjected to the processing or treatment that whether of only one material or of more than one, it has attained a distinctive name, character, or use different from that originally possessed by the material or materials before being subjected to the manufacturing process.

There is no occasion or necessity here to depart from the definition thus given. It is based upon the substantial authority of many years of judicial construction.

Viewing the case at bar by the light of these decisions, it must appear the goods in question are not manufactures of leather. That they have been processed and subjected to manufacturing is obvious; but there may be, and often is, a clear distinction between an article which has been manufactured and a manufacture of certain material. The one phrase imports a processing operation; the other imports a completed article of commerce. As we have seen, the articles of importation in this case, although subjected to manufacturing processes, so far as the record goes, have not arrived at the stage of completed articles; they have no distinctive name or use. They have been cut to form and size for making purses and bags, but what further manufacturing processes must be used before they can. be converted into purses and bags we do not know nor can we tell what other use might be made of these articles. It may be that upon another record, sufficient facts might be developed to bring these articles within the adjudged definition of manufactures, but the record before us falls far short of this and we must take the record as it comes to us. On it, the merchandise can not be classified under paragraph 1432.

The goods should have been classified as bag leather, under paragraph 1431, and the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reliquidate accordingly. Reversed and remanded.

SMITH and HATFIELD, Judges, concur in conclusion reached.

BLAND, Judge, dissenting: It will be noted that the only two items which may be considered as evidence in the record are the appraiser's answer to the protest and the official sample. The decision of the court holds that the article is not a manufacture of leather under paragraph 1432, but is bag leather under paragraph 1431, and that

it is not leather cut into forms suitable for conversion into manufactured articles under paragraph 1606.

While the opinion of the court might reflect the idea that the article is not a manufactured article for the reason that it is not completed, I feel sure the court would not have so concluded if the proof had shown this article had been what I think we are justified in saying it is from such evidence as is in the record. True enough, the whole matter would have been simplified if proof had been introduced establishing the name or use of the article as it comes to us, and further proof showing the definition and characteristics of bag leather would have made the court's task easier and its conclusions more satisfactory.

It is my contention, however, that this court may properly inform itself from recognized authorities as to the definition and characteristics of such articles mentioned in the tariff act as bag leather. While the court might be mistaken as to the relative merits between given authorities on any question, it seems clear that where they are in substantial accord the court is justified in referring to the leading writers on the question for definitions and characteristics of articles the classification of which it is reviewing on appeal. The view is clearly sustained by United States v. Merck & Co. (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 171; T. D. 37288).

I have consulted "Modern American Tanning," volume 2, "Hides and Skins and the Manufacture of Leather," by James Paul Warburg; "Practical Tanning," by Rogers; "Dictionary of Tariff Information," by the United States Tariff Commission; "The Leather Specimen Book," by Frederic W. La Croix; the dictionaries, and other authorities, and from them I reached a conclusion as to the definition and characteristics of bag leather which are not supplied by the record. From these authorities I find sufficient facts to convince me that when Congress enacted paragraph 1431 and referred to bag leather it did not mean leather which had been cut to form for making bags and further highly processed and manufactured toward the completion of the bag, but that it had in mind a definite, general class of leather known as bag leather imported into this country and sold ofttimes in the hide in the same manner as is sole leather, glove leather, and several other kinds of leather; that bag leather so imported may be used for the making of fancy goods of many varieties other than bags. Bag leather is a fancy leather and has characteristics differing from most other leathers, one of which being that it is tanned and prepared without the use of much grease in order to prevent the grease from the leather coming in contact with linings or other fancy materials used in connection with the manufactured article into which the leather goes.

72052-25†-VOL 12- -37

The sample, as it comes before us, and which is evidence from which we may draw all reasonable inferences, is a piece of finely finished leather about 7 by 9 inches, dyed and polished on one side. Around three sides of the finished surface of the leather is an indented margin line about 1⁄2 inch from the edge. Inside of this indented parallelogram and about 4 inch from it is another parallelogram made by a line of indented gilt figures. All of the surface of the finished side, inside of the gilded lines, is a highly embossed figured surface consisting of artistic designs in at least five colors. The importation has the appearance of being the product of elaborate methods of embossing, coloring, and designing directed toward the making of a side of a purse or bag. The appraiser's report states that it is for use in making purses and bags. The record does not disclose that it is a purse side, but if it is used in making purses it would be difficult to ascribe any other use to it than that of a purse side.

Purse sides have been held, by the Board of General Appraisers, by a decision of General Appraiser Somerville, in T. D. 15724 (G. A. 2905), to be a manufacture of leather; and from the description, in the decision, it seems that practically the same article there was under consideration as is under consideration here.

In the above case the competing paragraphs were one covering the manufactures of leather and another covering "leather cut into * * * forms, suitable for conversion into manufactured articles." Other kinds of leather were specifically mentioned, and leather not specially provided for was also referred to in the act. It was not claimed by either side that they should have been assessed except under one of the two paragraphs first above referred to. In the opinion are the following statements:

The merchandise under consideration consists of embossed pieces of leather of rectangular shape, about 51⁄2 by 61⁄2 inches in dimensions, which are properly represented by the sample accompanying the report of the local appraiser, and was imported in September, 1894.

The embossing or stamping is done in a manner to produce figures in relief on one side of the leather, and cost, according to the estimate of the appraiser, "six times the cost of the leather thus cut into shapes."

The articles are commercially known as "leather outsides," being used for the outsides of pocketbooks or money purses.

The collector assessed a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem on the merchandise under paragraph 353, tariff act of 1894, as manufactures of leather not specially provided for in said act.

We find that the leather in question has not only been cut into "forms," but has been advanced beyond this condition by being subjected to an additional process of manufacture by embossing, which largely enhances its value.

For the same reasons set out in this case I am of the opinion that the importation at hand should not be classified as "leather cut into

forms," but upon the reasoning in the case I think the importation at hand is clearly a manufacture of leather.

While the opinion of the court in the case at hand does not in so many words say that if the record had disclosed that these were purse sides, or leather outsides, used for the making of pocketbooks or bags, the court would have held them as manufactured articles, the argument and citation of cases leads one to believe that the writer of the opinion, at least, would not so have regarded these articles even had the record more fully disclosed the name and use of the article.

While I can see that the meagerness of the record in this case is more or less embarrassing to the court and handicaps it in the certainty of its conclusions, I am firmly convinced that the sample shows for itself what it is and, when considered with the appraiser's answer, is sufficient evidence to show the degree of its advancement in manufacture and the part it plays in making the bag. If this were not true in this case, the presence of samples and the use of them as evidence in appellate procedure in the classification of merchandise would seem to be a vain and purposeless thing.—Krusi v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 168; T. D. 31213); Veit, Son & Co. v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 81; T. D. 38732); United States v. Wertheimer & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 454; T. D. 32204). In the last-cited case the evidence of the samples before this court was sufficient even to overcome the presumption of correctness of the finding of the collector.

The court has the mistaken notion that bag leather is all leather that goes into the making of bags. A resort to the authorities, which I am convinced it may properly examine, would have removed this erroneous impression. Probably the opinion in this case was written upon the mistaken notion that bag leather, being all leather that goes into the making of bags, is more specific than a manufacture of leather. Bag leather is a general term. Bag leather does not necessarily go into the making of bags. Bag leather is a step more specific than leather. Surely it could not be contended, if "leather" and manufactures of leather were competing in this case, that the court would hold this product leather and not a manufacture of leather. The fact that "not specially provided for" follows the words "manufactures of leather" in paragraph 1432 does not lessen the relative specificity of the phrase when contrasted with the term "bag leather." This is clearly decided in Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 58; T. D. 33307).

While it was claimed by the importers in their protest that the importation should have been assessed under paragraph 1431 as bag leather, they at no time insisted, either in their briefs or oral argu

ment, that such would have been the proper classification. I may be wrong, as I frequently am, but to hold this highly manufactured product bag leather at 20 per cent ad valorem, along with the ordinary importation of bag leather in the hide, uncut, and not further processed than merely finished leather, is not carrying out the evident and manifest intentions of Congress in providing for manufactures of leather.

There have been many attempts to define what is a manufacture of an article. I think the rule is well established that it is an article that has been, by a manufacturing effort or process, advanced and changed from its original condition so that it takes on the characteristics of a different article, and must have attained a different name, character, or use. In other words, it must pass from its original condition to a different condition which may be distinguished by a different name or a different character or use.-Ishimitsu Co. v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186; T. D. 38963).

Assuming that this article was bag leather before it was cut or embossed (and there is nothing in the record to so indicate), has it been changed by a manufacturing process into another article with a different name or a different use? The record is silent as to name, but the appraiser's report gives its use, which is a specific and different use from the general use to which it was put while in the form of bag leather. An examination of the sample is convincing also of the new use as distinguished from the general use.

It may be contended that paragraph 1432, in which the words "manufactures of leather" are found, treats of the finished article, such as bags, baskets, etc., and that, in order for this article to be a manufacture of leather and fall within this paragraph, it would have to be a manufactured article in the same sense that a bag is a manufactured article. I do not think Congress so intended. Congress intended that, if such an important part of a bag or purse as is this purse side which lies before me, is imported into this country, having had so much manufacturing effort expended upon it, it should take the same rate of duty, though valued at less, as the finished bag.

The books are full of examples of articles having the same general characteristics as the one at hand, holding them manufactures of various materials. The proposition that the raw material for a manufactured article may already be a manufactured article, or a manufacture of a material, is too well settled to need citation. This manufacture of leather before me is the material from which the finished purse is made.

In Tilge & Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 97; T. D. 32360) leather sweatbands for hats were under consideration. They were the raw materials for making the hats. They were held to be a manufacture of leather and not leather cut into forms, although the

« AnteriorContinuar »