Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

No. 34479.-PUMICE STONE.-Protest 680637-43570 of F. W. Thurston Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled as to pumice stone classified as partially manufactured under paragraph 89, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7462 (T. D. 33408) followed.

No. 34480.-INSPECTORS' FEES.-Protest 654788 of Atlantic Transport Co. (Baltimore). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled on the authority of G. A. 7513 (T. D. 33979) relating to fees for the services of inspectors while superintending the lading of a vessel at night.

No. 34481.-REGALIA.-Protest 621295 of G. Benninghausen (Port Townsend). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

A banner classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, was claimed entitled to free entry as regalia (par. 661). The regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury not having been complied with, protest overruled.

No. 34482. SCIENTIFIC APPARATUS.-Protest 614723 of University of Washington (Port Townsend). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Maps intended for use in a college, classified under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be free of duty as scientific apparatus (par. 650). Protest overruled, the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury not having been complied with.

No. 34483.-USUAL COVERINGS.-Protest 697729 of Leubrie & Elkus (New York). HAY, General Appraiser: The protestants in this case claim that a certain case made of cardboard and covered with surface-coated paper, measuring about 8 by 12 by 9 inches, and containing five drawers, four containing birthday cards and one envelopes therefor, is the usual covering of the merchandise contained. Duty was assessed by the collector upon the case and the envelopes contained therein as unusual coverings. As frequently pointed out by us, to be subject to duty as provided in subsection 18 of section 28, a covering of merchandise must not only be unusual, but otherwise designed for use than in the bona fide transportation of the merchandise. So far as being designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the merchandise is concerned, the case at bar differs in no material respect from that which was the subject of this board's decision in the case of Hohner et al., Abstract 29490 (T. D. 32760), and affirmed in United States v. Hohner et al. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 122; T. D. 33393). Following that decision we reach the conclusion that the coverings in question should not have been assessed under the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909.

An examination of the appraiser's letter to the collector relative to the protest in question leaves the impression that he has construed the protest to be a protest also against the assessment on the envelopes in the case. They were, however, in our judgment properly assessed under paragraph 414, not as coverings, but as part of the contents of the case. The above decision is intended only to apply to the assessment of duty on the cases in which the cards and the envelopes were contained as unusual coverings. The protest is sustained as to the cases and overruled as to the envelopes. The collector will reliquidate accordingly.

No. 34484.-COVERINGS-CONTAINERS OF BISCUITS.-Protests 309918, etc., of Moos & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Fancy tins containing biscuits, classified under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as usual coverings. Abstract 19254 (T. D. 29119) followed.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 15, 1914.

No. 34485.-COLORING FOR FOOD PRODUCTS.-Protests 703891, etc., of La Manna, Azema & Farnan (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

A coloring liquid made from insect cochineal and used for coloring or staining foods and liquids, classified under paragraph 56, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). Abstract 34309 (T. D. 34026) followed.

No. 34486.-COAL-TAR OILS.-Protests 565632, etc., of J. W. Hampton, jr., & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Protests overruled as to preparations of coal tar, classified under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7442 (T. D. 33259) followed.

No. 34487.-EDGE'S PINK TINT.-Protests 672949, etc., of A. De Ronde & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Edge's pink tint, classified under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). Abstract 33757 (T. D. 33778) followed.

No. 34488.-EMBROIDERED Leather GLOVES.-Protest 678947 of F. & R. Lazarus & Co. (Columbus).

United States v. Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528) followed as to embroidered leather gloves.

No. 34489.-GILT PHOTOGRAPH FRAMES-CUFF BUTTONS.-Protest 279573 of Lord & Taylor (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Gilt-metal photograph frames, classified under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 193). Cuff and vest buttons made of gold set with garnets, classified under paragraphs 193 and 434, were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for (par. 414).

No. 34490.-METAL BELT BUCKLES-JEWELRY.-Protests 266870, etc., of Julius Loewenthal & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Metal belt buckles, classified as jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 193).

No. 34491.-WAX FOR MAKING RECORDS.-Protest 685516 of A. H. Ringk & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Wax specially prepared for use in making records, classified under paragraph 462, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). Abstract 28036 (T. D. 32379) followed.

No. 34492.-IMITATION PEARL BEADS.-Protest 397456 of Frederic's (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Imitation pearl beads composed of wax, strung on strands of cotton, classified as manufactures of paste under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as manufactures of wax (par. 448). G. A. 6639 (T. D. 28297) followed.

No. 34493.--AGATE, CUT-PRECIOUS STONES.-Protests 396904, etc., of F. Wm. Gertzen Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Agate cut in various shapes and intended for jewelry purposes, classified as manufactures of agate under paragraph 115, tariff act of 1897, was held dutiable as precious stones (par. 435).

No. 34494.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.--Protest 709768 of Icy-Hot Bottle Co. (Cincinnati). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

No. 34495.-INDIGO PASTE.-Protests 623904, etc., of A. Klipstein & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

On the authority of Klipstein v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 510; T. D. 33936) brominated indigo, classified as coal-tar colors or dyes under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as indigo paste (par. 25).

No. 34496.-WOOL DRESS GOODS.-Protest 719629 of Massce & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protest sustained claiming certain wool dress goods dutiable at 44 cents per pound and 55 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909.

No. 34497.-WOOL COATS-FUR WEARING APPAREL.-Protests 675979, etc., of F. H. Shallus (Baltimore). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Coats composed of fur, silk, and wool, classified as wool wearing apparel under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be fur chief value, dutiable under paragraph 439. Protests overruled.

No. 34498.-FISH IN TINS.-Protests 548251, etc., of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (Boston), and protest 720865 of Dingelstedt & Co. (New York). Opinions by Brown, G. A. United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70; T. D. 33312) and United States v. Haaker (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471; T. D. 33884) followed as to fish in tins.

No. 34499.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 721344 of Moscahlades Bros. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 15, 1914.

No. 34500.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 686236-43662, etc., of T. Buettner & Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 34501.-BLEACHED COTTON CLOTH.-Protests 251592, etc., of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

United States v. Rusch (167 Fed., 523; T. D. 29506) followed as to bleached cotton cloth with extra colored threads forming a figure.

No. 34502.-Waterproof COATS.-Protest 581718 of Mark Cross Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Raincoats composed of cotton and rubber, classified as cotton wearing apparel under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be in chief value of rubber, dutiable under paragraph 463. Protest sustained.

No. 34503.-UNION FABRICS.-Protest 650364-42577 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Union glass cloth classified as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be flax chief value, dutiable under paragraph 357. Protest sustained.

No. 34504.-FISHING TROUSERS-COTTON WEARING APPAREL.-Protest 670689 of O. G. Hempstead & Son (Philadelphia). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. So-called waders or fishing trousers composed of cotton and rubber, classified as cotton wearing apparel under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as manufactures of rubber (par. 463) or as manufactures of cotton (par. 332). Protest overruled, the evidence showing cotton to be chief value.

No. 34505.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 626576, etc., of Kern Commercial Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 15, 1914.

No. 34506.-Bronze FIGURES SCULPTURES.-Protest 623542 of E. Stegemann, jr. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Protest overruled as to bronze figures classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and claimed dutiable as sculptures (par. 470).

No. 34507.—Evergreen SeeDLINGS.-Protests 709348, etc., of P. C. Kuyper & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Evergreens produced from seed were held free of duty as evergreen seedlings under paragraph 668, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Protests sustained in part.

No. 34508.-WEIGHT OF FISH.-Protest 717905 of Rosenstein Bros. et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Rosenstein v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 401; T. D. 33840) followed as to the dutiable weight of fish in tins.

No. 34509.-TOMATO PASTE.-Protests 718377, etc., of Thomas & Pierson et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

On the authority of Vitelli v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 75; T. D. 33313) tomato paste or sauce was held dutiable under the provision for prepared vegetables in paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909.

No. 34510.-CIPOLLINA-VEGETABLES-ONIONS.-Protests 704675, etc., of A. Marano (Philadelphia). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Cipollina classified as a vegetable in its natural state under paragraph 269, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as onions (par. 261). Protests overruled. Abstract 14300 (T. D. 27892) and Abstract 33201 (T. D. 33668) noted.

No. 34511.—MEAT BALLS.-Protest 714850-44931 of C. L. Benson (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Meat balls in tins, classified as prepared meat under paragraph 286, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles (par. 480). Protest overruled.

No. 34512.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 705696-44728 of Chinese Trading Co. (Chicago), and protests 704639, etc., of O. G. Hempstead & Son et al. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Waite, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 34513.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 622021, etc., of W. F. Corne et al. (Boston). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 34514.-COLORED JUTE WASTE.-Protests 686713, etc., of American Express Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Jute waste assessed as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as waste not specially provided for (par. 479).

No. 34515. PERSONAL EFFECTS-BICYCLE.-Protest 637694 of Thos. Woolcock (Los
Angeles). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

A bicycle classified under paragraph 141, tariff act of 1909, was claimed entitled to free entry as personal effects (par. 709). Protest overruled. Abstract 25663 (T. D. 31624) followed.

No. 34516.-FITTED LEATHER CASES-DESK SETS.-Protest 714162 of Max Klass (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Desk sets classified as fitted leather cases under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 199).

No. 34517.—CLERICAL ERROR.--Protest 691395 of C. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis).
Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled, claiming clerical error.

No. 34518.-SUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST.-Protest 695236 of Massce & Co. (New York).
Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest dismissed as insufficient.

No. 34519.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 701118 of Samstag & Hilder Bros. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

(T. D. 34070.)

Zine dross and zine skimmings.

Zinc dross and zinc skimmings dutiable as metal, unwrought, at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 154, tariff act of 1913.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 14, 1914.

SIR: The department duly received your letters of November 21 and 28, 1913, in which you state that zinc dross and zinc skimmings would be assessed with duty at your port at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 163 of the tariff act as old zinc fit only for remanufacture.

The department is of the opinion, on consideration of the question, that such merchandise does not come under the provision of the said paragraph 163 for old and worn-out zine fit only to be remanufactured, but is properly dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the provision for metals, unwrought, in paragraph 154 of the existing tariff act, or, in the alternative, at the same rate as waste not specially provided for under paragraph 384 of the said act.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »