Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

because it is impossible to bend a heavy piece of quarter-inch glass so accurately as you can grind it. I should say that was a parabolic mirror, ground. I wouldn't want to say it could not be anything else, but it looks like one.

The witness is referring to the exhibit, and his statement, while not an absolute verity, is not disputed.

That the exhibit offered in evidence is part of a parabolic ground mirror is further sustained by the testimony of Examiner Wolff, who stated:

A. (Examines invoice.) I should say that was a ground parabolic mirror. It would not be plate glass at that price.

This witness, further testifying, described the manufacture of a ground parabolic mirror as follows:

A. Well, this differs in this way: If you want to make a parabolic mirror with a convexity of 6 inches, you would have probably to have it 8 inches thick and a little larger in size; then they have a grinder which digs down into it an absolutely correct distance from each point to the middle of it, and then also the reverse is ground the other way.

[blocks in formation]

Q. And that couldn't be done except by grinding?-A. That couldn't be done except by grinding. You can not take a piece of plate glass from one-fourth to onehalf inch thick and heat it and bend it accurately; it is absolutely impossible.

* *

*

silvered,

*

* *

Without further referring to the testimony, we are satisfied that the mirrors in question are parabolic ground mirrors, and not polished plate glass, bent. That this merchandise is eo nomine within paragraph 98 is unquestioned. That paragraph refers in specific terms to "all articles of every description composed wholly or in chief value of glass, or ground." Unquestionably the glass in dispute is silvered, and the evidence satisfactorily establishes it is ground. Paragraph 98 further provides for "all articles of every description, * composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise." This is an eo nomine description. The merchandise is composed wholly or in chief value of glass, silvered or ground, and not being plate glass, is blown either in a mold or otherwise. So that it appears to us from every angle the action of the collector is sustained by the testimony.

*

*

We have heretofore, in protest 676275 (G. A. 7550; T. D. 34351), held glass reflectors, silvered, within paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1909, and we cite as sustaining the action of the collector in the case at bar G. A. 7031 (T. D. 30665), which had reference to blown glass shells intended to be manufactured into thermos bottles, and Abstract 25466 (T. D. 31543), where the merchandise was thermo jars consisting of double jars, one inserted in the other, and constructed in the same manner as thermos bottles. The protests are overruled and the action of the collector affirmed.

No. 36036.-CHEMICAL GLASSWARE.-Protest 180309 of Richard Gibson (New

York).

SULLIVAN, General Appraiser: This protest is against the assessment of duty at 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 100 of the tariff act of 1897 on certain chemical glassware, described by protestant's witness as "Erlenmeyer flasks" and "praparaten cillinder," claiming the same dutiable at the appropriate rate according to capacity, or at the most at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 99, or at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 110 or 112 or 193 of the same act, and various other claims.

The testimony of protestant's witness was to the effect that the "praparaten cillinders" consisted of a molded cylinder having a molded glass foot and a ground-in stopper, ground to fit the cylinder; that it was formed entirely in a mold; and that there was no grinding other than what was necessary to fit the stopper. The only testimony as to the Erlenmeyer flasks was to the effect that they were always known

as such. On cross-examination it was disclosed that these articles are used in chemical laboratories, and that the hollow part of the cylinders was blown in a mold, and the portion that was not blown was principally the foot.

The evi

Paragraph 100 of the act of 1897 is with reference to blown glassware. dence is undisputed that the "praparaten cillinders" are molded glassware; that the hollow part was blown in a mold, and the only grinding to which they were subjected was for the purpose of fitting the stoppers.

There seems to be a conflict of the authorities with reference to paragraph 100 of the act of 1897. The board in Abstract 26228 (T. D. 31804) held that the cylinders and Erlenmeyer and other forms of flasks were dutiable as blown glassware. The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York in Eimer v. United States (126 Fed., 439; T. D. 25112) held this class of merchandise was not blown glassware, and drew a distinction between the glass mentioned in paragraph 100 and the molded glass mentioned in paragraph 99. In United States v. Heil Chemical Co. (178 Fed., 537; T. D. 30492) the Circuit Court of Appeals held that merchandise very similar to that in the case at bar, being glassware blown in a mold, was within the provisions of paragraph 100 of the act of 1897, and that the term "blown glassware" is not limited to articles blown free-handed, but includes also those blown in a mold.

The testimony being uncontradicted that the hollow part of the cylinders was blown in a mold and that the Erlenmeyer flasks were always known under that name, and Abstract 26228 (T. D. 31804, supra) showing that Erlenmeyer flasks are composed wholly of blown glass, the merchandise comes within the provisions of paragraph 100 and is dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem as blown glassware. The protest is overruled and the collector's action affirmed.

No. 36037.—IMITATION CORAL on Wire.-Protests 616220, etc., of F. Wm. Gertzen Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Protests overruled as to imitation coral on wire classified as manufactures of metal and paste under paragraphs 199 and 109, tariff act of 1909, claimed dutiable as imitation precious stones (par. 449) or as beads (par. 421). G. A. 7155 (T. D. 31234) distinguished.

No. 36038.-IMITATION JET.-Protests 408401-31612, etc., of Bernard, Judae & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 457; T. D. 31506) followed as to imitation jet.

No.

36039.-JEWELRY-ROSARIES-HATPINS-METAL

CHAINS-JEWELRY

BELT BUCKLES IMITATION PEARL BEADS-CELLULOID COMBS-METAL PURSESTOY RATTLES.-Protests 244150, etc., of I. Emrich & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Benziger v. United States (172 Fed., 280; T. D. 29777) and G. A. 7053 (T. D. 30731) followed, holding rosaries dutiable according to the component material of chief value. Hatpins with heads consisting of plain paste balls in imitation of precious stones or jet were held dutiable under paragraph 112 or 193, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 6139 (T. D. 26679), G. A. 6808 (T. D. 29265), and G. A. 6995 (T. D. 30444) followed. Long metal chains were held dutiable under paragraph 193. Abstract 15266 (T. D. 28132) followed. Metal belt buckles were held dutiable as manufactures of metal and paste (par. 193 and 112). G. A. 6374 (T. D. 27382) and Abstract 17492 (T. D. 28575) followed. Imitation pearl beads temporarily strung, more than half filled with wax, were held dutiable as manufactures of wax (par. 448). G. A. 6639 (T. D. 28297), Abstract 32015 (T. D. 33348), and Abstract 34492 (T. D. 34069) followed. Protest overruled as to celluloid combs with metal tops classified as jewelry under paragraph 434. Metal purses were held dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 193). Silver rattles were held dutiable as toys (par. 418). Protests sustained in part.

No. 36040.-JEWELRY.-Protests 513898, etc., of Maloof & Dowaliby et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

United States v. Cohn (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 273; T. D. 32571) and Cohn v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378; T. D. 33536) followed as to articles commonly known as jewelry. Protests sustained in part.

No. 36041.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 551172-38858, etc., of Bernard, Judae & Co. et al., and protests 730707-45376, etc., of Lyon & Healy et al. (Chicago), and protests 432439, etc., of Albert Lorsch & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 36042.—MINERAL WAX-CHEMICAL COMPOUND.-Protests 711789, etc., of F. B. Ross & Co. (New York).

BROWN, General Appraiser: The merchandise is invoiced as mineral wax or white hardening wax, and is stated by the appraiser to consist of a preparation of saponifiable fatty acid compounds, free fatty acids, and paraffin, containing some lime soap. It was classified for duty as a chemical mixture under paragraph 3, act of 1909, and it is claimed to be free as paraffin under paragraph 645, or as mineral or vegetable wax under paragraph 707, or in the alternative 10 or 20 per cent under paragraph 480 as an unenumerated unmanufactured or manufactured article.

The importer's testimony is to the effect that it is mineral or vegetable wax mixed with paraffin, and that it is similar in all respects to the merchandise held by Judge Hay in protest 254967, Abstract 21425 (T. D. 29834) to be free as mineral wax.

The chemist's report and the chemist's testimony, presented by the Government, fail to break down the importers' claim, and on the evidence before us in this record we are constrained to hold that it comes within the principle of Judge Lacombe's decision in United States v. Morningstar (168 Fed., 541; T. D. 29651) admitting a certain substance known as carnauba-wax substitute to free entry under an identical provision in the act of 1897. The court said in that case:

Evidently Congress used the words "mineral wax" in their popular sense; otherwise they would cover nothing. The article in question is compounded of carnaul a wax and paraffin, and when completed is to all appearance a waxy substance used for the same purpose as are other waxes and containing no animal wax.

In the case at bar the Government chemist testified that there was some lime present in a very small quantity. This, the importer testified, was added for making this substance harder and more convenient to use, but that the addition of the lime did not change any of its uses.

We hold the merchandise free under paragraph 707, as claimed.
Protests sustained.

No. 36043.-RESIN-BREWERS' PITCH.-Protest 708747 of G. Grosselfinger (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

So-called brewers' pitch, used for lining beer containers to prevent the beer from coming in contact with the wood of the keg, classified as resin, advanced in value or condition under paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909, was claimed free of duty or dutiable at a lower rate under numerous paragraphs. Protest overruled.

No. 36044.-COAL-TAR BASES.-Protests 654608, etc., of Badische Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

United States v. Badische (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., ; T. D. 34400) followed as to coaltar bases, held dutiable as products or preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes, under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, or paragraph 21, tariff act of 1913.

No. 36045.-SAPO CRESOL-COAL-TAR PRODUCT.-Protests 572697, etc., of White Tar Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

So-called sapo cresol, classified as a coal-tar product under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, was claimed free of duty as sheep dip (par. 669). Protests overruled.

No. 36046.-CHEMICAL COMPOUND.-Protests 569148, etc., of Brunswig Drug Co. (Los Angeles). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

A substance composed of 10 per cent cyanide of potash and the balance cyanide of soda, classified as a chemical compound under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as cyanide of potassium (par. 64). Protests overruled.

No. 36047.-INDIGO BROMATE.-Protest 725240 of Farbwerke-Horchst Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Indigo bromate was held dutiable under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1909, as claimed, rather than under paragraph 15, as classified. Klipstein v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 510; T. D. 33936) followed.

No. 36048.-FISH IN TINS.-Protests 470001, etc., of Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. et al. (Boston, etc.), protests 408388-31138, etc., of C. L. Benson et al. (Chicago), protests 621026, etc., of Hawley & Letzerich et al. (Galveston, etc.), protests 446198, etc., of Meyer & Lange et al., and protests 431086, etc., of G. Sasso & Sons et al. (New York), and protests 716188, etc., of Achard & Co. et al. (New York, etc.). Opinions by Brown, G. A.

United States v. Miller (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 34443) and United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70; T. D. 33312) followed as to fish in tins.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JUNE 30, 1914.

No. 36049.-BRONZE WIRE CLOTH-METAL-THREAD ARTICLES-PROTEST CLAIMING HIGHER RATE.-Protest 707908 of W. S. Tyler Co. (Cleveland). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Bronze wire cloth, classified under paragraphs 199 and 135, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as articles composed of metal threads (par. 179). United States v. Schwartz (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 24; T. D. 32315), and United States v. Byrne (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 52; T. D. 32316) followed, holding a protest valid which claims a higher rate of duty than that assessed. Protest overruled. United States v. McCoy (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 396; T. D. 33838) cited.

No. 36050.-SURFACE-COATED PAPER SIGNS.-Protests 673269, etc., of Kaufmann & Strauss Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Signs made of paper board covered with surface-coated paper were held properly classified under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Wyman (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 411; T. D. 33851) followed.

No. 36051.-BASKETS IN CHIEF VALUE OF SILK.-Protest 726725-45472 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago).

HOWELL, General Appraiser: This protest has been submitted on the record, from which it appears that the goods in question consist of "colored baskets composed of silk, cotton, straw and wood, silk being the component material of chief value." Duty was assessed thereon by the collector as manufactures in chief value of silk at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1909. The importers claim that the articles are properly dutiable as baskets of wood at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 214 of said act.

In G. A. 7221 (T. D. 31587) the board held similar articles to be properly dutiable as baskets of wood rather than as manufacturers in chief value of silk. On appeal the decision of the board was affirmed by the Court of Customs Appeals in United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171). In G. A. 7441 (T. D. 33241) the Zinn case was cited by the board as an authority for holding certain bottles covered with wicker composed of willow, the willow constituting the component material of chief value, to be properly dutiable as bottles and not as manufactures in chief value of willow. This decision of the board was reversed by the Court of Customs Appeals in United States v. Mulhens (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 496; T. D. 33917), wherein the court, in commenting on their understanding of the Zinn case, said:

The board says with reference to the case last mentioned that this court therein "decided that baskets composed of straw, willow, rattan, and wood, lined and padded with silk, silk being the component material of chief value, were dutiable as baskets of wood under paragraph 214 and not as manufactures in chief value of silk under paragraph 403 of the act of 1909."

With reference to the Zinn case, we pause here to say that the opinion of this court, by Montgomery, Presiding Judge, states:

"An analysis of the original material of which the basket as thus lined was composed showed the chief value of the raw material to be silk. It does not appear that the value of the lining exceedea that of the finished basket.”

Attention is called to this now because the board in the case at bar assumes that in the Zinn case silk was the component material of chief value, while from the lastquoted statement it appears that this court did not so understand in that case.

In view of this statement of the court as to its understanding of what constituted the component material of chief value in the baskets covered by the Zinn case, we do not consider that that case is controlling in the case at bar. As the baskets in question are composed in chief value of silk we hold that they are properly dutiable as manufactures in chief value of silk at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 403 of said act, as assessed.

The protest is accordingly overruled and the decision of the collector is affirmed.

No. 36052.-RIBBONS.-Protests 724893, etc., of New York Merchandise Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Ribbons composed in chief value of artificial silk and in chief value of cotton were held properly classified under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36053.-HEMP BRAIDS.-Protest 634101 of G. T. Day & Co. (Boston), and protest 717816 of Nozaki Bros. (San Francisco). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Hemp braids classified as bleached, found to be not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, were held dutiable accordingly under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Abstract 32145 (T. D. 33389) followed.

No. 36054.-SILK VEILS MADE ON LEVER MACHINE-APPLIQUÉD SILK FABRICS.Protests 707874, etc., of E. & Z. Van Raalte (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protests overruled as to certain silk veils classified under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, as made on the Lever or Gothrough machine and claimed dutiable under paragraph 402. United States v. Ewing (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 333; T. D. 32624) followed as to silk fabrics appliquéd with small pieces of paste in a design producing an all-over dotted effect, classified under paragraph 399.

No. 36055.-WEARING APPAREL IN Chief Value of LEVER LACE.-Protest 713919 of S. G. Altemus (Philadelphia). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protest overruled as to a dressing gown and blouse classified as silk wearing apparel in part of Lever lace under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909.

27778-VOL 26-14- -72

« AnteriorContinuar »