Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

It appears that at some ports these articles are classified as smokers' articles under paragraph 475 of the tariff act, while at others they are assessed with duty as toys, for the reason, as stated, that they are known and bought and sold in the trade as toys.

While it is a cardinal rule of tariff interpretation that the commercial designation or denomination of an article in the markets of this country shall control its classification-G. A. 4855 (T. D. 22765 and 125 U. S., 70 and 75)-attention is invited to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 4855 (T. D. 22765), wherein it was held that toys are articles designed chiefly as playthings for children and are suitable for that purpose, and that not every article can be considered a toy simply because a child might play with it and be amused thereby.

The department, in a letter addressed to the appraiser at the port of New York under date of March 18, 1912, expressed the opinion that trick match boxes, cigarettes, wooden cigars, and cigar cutters are not articles suitable for the amusement of children. Following this ruling, it is of the opinion that glass cigarette holders of the character under consideration are not dutiable as toys; and as they can not be used as cigarette holders in their condition as imported, they are not, in the opinion of the department, dutiable as smokers' articles under paragraph 381 of the tariff act.

You are accordingly directed to classify future importations of these articles according to the component material of chief value. CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Respectfully,
(94000.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Chicago, Ill.

Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 34051.)

Plant quarantine act-Importation of potatoes.

Customs officers instructed to be governed by copies of certain regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture dated December 30, 1913, which have been forwarded to them.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 12, 1914.

To collectors and other officers of the customs:

Referring to the order of the Secretary of Agriculture covering the admission of foreign potatoes under restriction, published as T. D. 34022 of the 29th ultimo, your attention is invited to copies of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture dated December 30, 1913, under the said order, which regulations have been forwarded to you this day and by which you will be governed.

(92655-19.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 34052—G. A. 7524.)

Radiogen-Trinkwasser-Radium bromide in water.

Radium bromide dissolved in distilled water is entitled to free entry as radium" under paragraph 659 of the free list, and is not properly dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem as a medicinal preparation not specially provided for under paragraph 65, act of 1909.

United States General Appraisers, New York, January 8, 1914.

In the matter of protests 692515, etc., of E. Stegemann, jr., et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 1 (MCCLELLAND, SULLIVAN, and BROWN, General Appraisers). BROWN, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question is invoiced as "Radiogen-Trinkwasser." In protest 692515 the appraiser states that it "consists of a radio-active preparation, used medicinally, returned as a medicinal preparation at 25 per cent ad valorem,” under paragraph 65, act of 1909, and in protest 698662 that it "consists of radio-active water and bandages impregnated with a radioactive solution, used for medicinal purposes."

The protests make a number of claims, and we are not favored with briefs from counsel; but counsel for protestants states, on page 17 of the record, that "the only claim relied upon is that for free entry as radium under paragraph 659."

Mr. Morgenstern, the importer, testified (p. 3 of record) that it is used in medicine, especially in the treatment of cancer of the stomach, and also what is called uric-acid conditions, such as acute arthritis; that pure radium has never been marketed as such, but within the last two years Madame Curie has stated that she had isolated the metal as a scientific curiosity; that (p. 5) it always appears in the form of salts, with a large percentage of impurities; further (p. 6), that the purest radium salt that we have is radium bromide, which only recently has been purified to the extent of about 90 per cent as it is known in the market. Radium exists in the form of radium, radium chloride, radium sulphide, radium sulphate, and other combinations; that the merchandise in question consisted of a small quantity of radium bromide dissolved in distilled water; also, that the representative sample put in evidence (a bottle holding about 1 ounce of the liquid) contained 0.0033 milligram of radium bromide. Dr. Heber Roberts, in his Practical Radium (1909), p. 36, says: Pure radium means radium bromide in a pure state or in combination with chloride, acetate, sulphate, and carbonate. The pure metallic radium is never seen.

When the Congress inserted in the act of 1909 the provisions of the free list, using simply the word "radium," it must have meant to include more than the pure metal. According to the testimony in this case, radium does not occur in nature as the uncombined metal,

and is not marketed for use as a medicine in that form, but only in the form of its various salts, either dissolved in water, as in this case, or mixed with some solid container. To hold in these circumstances that Congress meant only to admit free the pure metal radium, uncombined, would, in our opinion, render the provision in the free list meaningless.

Assuming that the salts of radium were intended to be allowed free entry, including the bromide, they plainly should not be excluded from the free list because dissolved in water.

We therefore hold that the merchandise in question is entitled to free entry under section 659 of the free list as "radium," and that the classification of the collector under paragraph 65 as a medicinal preparation not specially provided for is hereby reversed.

Protests sustained.

(T. D. 34053.)

Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.

Board 1-McClelland, Sullivan, and Brown. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board 3-Waite, Somerville, and Hay.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 5, 1914.

No. 34411.-GRAIN LEATHER.-Protest 675356-43193 of Chicago Sporting Goods Manufacturing Co. (Chicago). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

On the authority of Spalding v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 356; T. D. 32910), grain leather made from cowhide was held dutiable at 74 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 5, 1914.

No. 34412.-REAPPRAISEMENT OF CHINA-VALIDITY.-Protest 567341 of Robert B. Ways (Baltimore).

FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of china invoiced as "Victor white and gold No. 520," contained in two cases numbered 1673 and 1689. This china was reappraised and the protest contends that so far as the specified goods are in question the so-called reappraisement thereof was a nullity and the collector should have ignored it in his assessment of the said goods for duty. It is in fact contended that duty should have been levied on the basis of the value found by the local appraiser (which was of the same amount as the entered value).

The goods were advanced in value on reappraisement proceedings May 13, 1911. The entry was liquidated on June 7, 1911, on the basis of the advanced value. This protest was filed by the importer June 12, 1911. The original reappraisement return was subsequently marked "void," and at the same time what purported to be a supplemental return on reappraisement was made on July 6, 1911. From these facts we glean that almost two months after a return of reappraisement and one month after liquidation of the entry and about one month after a protest had been duly filed

27778-VOL 26-14-2

against a liquidation of said entry it was sought by a supplemental reappraisement return to change the value of merchandise the dutiable status of which had prior thereto become final under the statute.

The record here offered does not establish all the facts that led up to the making of the supplemental report changing the value of goods as originally reappraised, nor does it show other than that such action was in legal effect a new reappraisement, made after a prior return had become final and conclusive in the absence of an appeal for re-reappraisement. The law does not confer upon a general appraiser the power of reversing his own decision on appraisement, and it is conclusive in the absence of appeal and where not shown to be irregular, illegal, or void. United States v. Morewood (94 Fed., 639) and Leeming v. United States (153 Fed., 489; T. D. 27986). This supplemental report or return must, therefore, be regarded as void and of no effect. The original reappraisement is then not "void," as marked, but is in full effect. It follows there was no error on the part of the collector in his assessment of duty on the goods on the basis of such original return on reappraisement.

The case was submitted in June, 1912. It was redocketed with the following notation:

There is nothing in this record to show how the papers in the reappraisement proceedings marked A, which were forwarded to Board 2 with the protest and other papers in the case, became a part thereof. I have accordingly directed that the protest be restored to the Baltimore docket so that the said record may be corrected in order that the protest may be properly considered.

I. F. FISCHER,

Chairman Board 2.

The continued proceeding took place April 2, 1913, at Baltimore, and counsel for the Government in explaining the unusual state of affairs requested that such reappraisement papers be not made a part of the record, and the following notation was thereupon made pursuant to his request:

Upon the statement of W. A. Robertson, special attorney for the United States, acquiesced in by the representative of the importer, that the reappraisement papers marked "A" in this case were not offered and received in evidence at the hearing heretofore had in Baltimore, and the said papers not being offered or received in evidence at this hearing,

It is ordered that the said reappraisement papers marked "A" be taken from this file and restored to their place in the files of the reappraisement division of the Board of General Appraisers.

Without such papers, so excluded from the record, there is nothing here in defense of the attempt to correct possibly an irregularity or error, and whatever view we take or in whatever light the facts might otherwise be seen, on the record here before us we must hold that the reappraisement of the china invoiced as "Victor white and gold No. 520," return of May 13, 1911, must stand. The protest is accordingly overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 7, 1914.

No. 34413.-BOTTLES CONTAINING AD VALOREM MERCHANDISE.-Protests 452456, etc., of Unkart, Travis & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Plain molded glass bottles imported filled with merchandise subject to ad valorem duty were held dutiable at the rate applicable to their contents, on the authority of G. A. 7377 (T. D. 32644).

No. 34414.-BEADED BAGS.-Protest 587465 of Abraham & Straus (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Women's handbags classified under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as articles composed in chief value of beads (par. 421), as claimed.

No. 34415.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 711983, etc., of The Boys' Home et al. (Cincinnati). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 34416.-FISH IN TINS.-Protests 400653, etc., of Chas. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70; T. D. 33312) herrings in tomato sauce and kippered herrings were held dutiable under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 34417.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 722092 of Gimbel Bros. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JanuaRY 7, 1914.

No. 34418.-PORTFOLIOS-BOOKS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES.-Protests 722179-45182, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Portfolios of illustrations classified under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909, were claimed exempt from duty as books printed chiefly in a foreign language (par. 518). Protests overruled.

No. 34419.-Books FOR GRATUITOUS CIRCULATION.-Protests 697619, etc., of W. Van Doorn (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Books for gratuitous private circulation were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. United States v. Gips (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 5 8; T. D. 33879) followed.

No. 34420.-EMBOSSED POST CARDS.-Protests 717797, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Fuld (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 234; T. D. 33476) embossed post cards classified under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as printed matter (par. 416).

No. 34421.-SURFACE-COATED PAPER BOXES, EMBOSSED.-Protest 719536 of A. Borgzinner & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Paper boxes covered with embossed surface-coated paper, classified under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable under paragraph 411. Protest overruled on the authority of Woolworth v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 120; T. D. 31119).

No. 34422.-LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS.-Protest 722476 of Wm. A. Foster & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Advertising matter lithographically printed, classified under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as printed matter (par. 416). Protest overruled. No. 34423.-LITHOGRAPHED PAPER ARTICLES.-Protest 590690. of B. Wilmsen (Philadelphia). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Articles made up of several pieces of paper pasted together, lithographically printed, were held properly classified at 20 cents per pound under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. Hensel v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 94; T. D. 33370) followed.

No. 34424.-ONIONSKIN PAPER-SULPHITE WRAPPING PAPER.-Protest 721184-4586 of George Wm. Rueff (New Orleans). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. So-called sulphite wrapping paper classified as onion skin paper under paragraph 413, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as wrapping paper (par. 415), as claimed.

« AnteriorContinuar »