Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

opportunity to the owner to show cause why the right of sale of the Government should not be exercised.

Where the Government proceeds promptly to summarily condemn and sell the vessel it does not seem to me that Congress intended that the vessel should in the meantime be taken from the Government's possession. I do think, however, that in view of the sole remedy given to such owners which is to have the Government so proceed promptly (The Blairmore I, 10 Fed. (2d) 35), that if the Government unduly delays instituting such summary proceeding or the filing of a libel or delays the trial of such suit that then the owner under the rules would have the right to apply to the court for the exercise of its discretion on the question of a temporary release of the vessel. This is not saying that this right to

bail is mandatory although facts might be presented to the court which would make its refusal then to bail an abuse of discretion.

It should be borne in mind that this decision is strictly limited to a case where the libel is based solely on a violation covered by section 26 of the national prohibition act and after the conviction of a crew of the vessel of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor within the territorial limits of the United States.

Certainly the privilege extended to the owner to show good cause why the sale should not take place does not make a temporary release mandatory on the court. Accordingly it seems to me that in a case like this it is not mandatory that the Harbour Trader be released, but on the other hand it rests within the sound legal discretion of the court to release it.

It appears that she was seized well within the 3-mile limit. Her crew has pleaded guilty and been sentenced. There is no question but that the vessel was “running rum" into this country contrary to our law. I can see no just complaint on the part of the owner that the Government has not proceeded summarily, but has given him the wider opportunity of proof of his good cause why she should not be sold by means of a libel and a trial. There is no proof that the Government has not proceeded promptly, and in fact the trial would have already taken place had it not been adjourned at the request of the owner and this adjournment will cover but a short time. I can see no benefit to the owner nor necessity for the release of this vessel during this very short time and under the circumstances here. On the contrary it appears to me to be simply an effort to get the ship away from this jurisdiction. In my opinion it would be an abuse of discretion to allow it. However, if the Government subsequently delays the trial then a different situation may arise.

Accordingly the motion is denied, without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon proof that the Government has delayed the trial or obstructed the owner from presenting his proof.

(T. D. 43566)

Values of foreign coins

[Circular No. 1, Director of the Mint]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 1, 1929. In pursuance of the provisions of section 25 of the act of August 27, 1894, as amended by section 403, Title IV, of the act of May 27, 1921, and reenacted by section 522, Title IV, act of September 21, 1922, I hereby proclaim the following estimates by the Director of the Mint of the values of pure metal contents of foreign coins to be the values of such coins in terms of the money of account of the United States, to be followed in estimating the value of all foreign

merchandise exported to the United States during the quarter beginning October 1, 1929, expressed in any such metallic currencies: Provided, however, That if no such value has been proclaimed, or if the value so proclaimed varies by 5 per cent or more from a value measured by the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation, conversion shall be made at a value measured by such buying rate, as determined by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and published by me as certified by said bank pursuant to the provisions of said section 25 as amended.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Foreign currencies-Rates of exchange

Rates of exchange certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c), tariff act of 1922

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
Washington, D. C., September 28, 1929.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

The appended table of the values of certain foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve

Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c) of the tariff act of 1922, during the period from September 19 to 25, 1929, inclusive, is published for the information of collectors of customs and others concerned.

(103512.)

F. X. A. EBLE, Commissioner of Customs.

Values of foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c), tariff act of 1922

PERIOD SEPTEMBER 19 TO 25, 1929, INCLUSIVE

[blocks in formation]

Certain machines, exclusively employed in chemically treating textile fibers ultimately produced into yarns, are properly dutiable at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 372 of the act of 1922 as textile machinery, rather than at 30 per centum under said paragraph as machines not specially provided for. Southgate v. United States, T. D. 43280, cited and followed.

United States Customs Court, Second Division

Protests 230626-G, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Norfolk

[Affirmed.]

(Decided September 24, 1929)

Carl W. Stern (Ernest F. A. Place of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (Peter A. Abeles, special attorney), for the United States.

Before FISCHER, WELLER, and TILSON, Justices

FISCHER, Chief Justice: Certain machines, assessed with duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 372 of the act of 1922 for "textile machinery or parts thereof, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for," are claimed to be properly dutiable at but 30 per centum ad valorem under said paragraph as machines not specially provided for.

The issue involved herein is aptly presented in the following preliminary statement made at the hearing by counsel for the plaintiffs:

Mr. PLACE. May it please the court, all of the protests, 11 in number, before the court this morning, cover merchandise which was assessed at 35 per cent under the provision of paragraph 372, as textile machinery or parts thereof.

It is our contention that all of the merchandise is dutiable under the same paragraph at the 30 per cent rate as all other machines not specially provided for and parts thereof. It is our contention that the machines are not textile machines for the reason that they operate to produce a textile fiber but do not operate upon a textile fiber to produce a textile product, which to my mind is a textile machine. If the machines under consideration this morning are textile machines, then a cotton gin, a plow, or a harrow on a cotton plantation down south, which are all machinery, are textile machines.

These machines are used to produce artificial-silk filaments, by what is known as the cupra-ammonium process. The cupra-ammonium process is essentially a chemical process or a series of chemical phenomena; but to produce the artificialsilk fibers by the cupra-ammonium process on a commercial scale, the process is facilitated and the product made more uniform and desirable by the assistance of machinery such as we have under consideration here.

In the production of the artificial-silk fibers prior to the forming of them into a yarn there are 11 distinct steps in the plant of the importing concern. Most of this installation was made of American products, but we have under consideration four types, or three types with four different machines that were imported.

Each one of these machines is a unit that performs a particular function in this chain of phenomena, and I will bring them out chronologically.

It appears from the record that the machines under consideration are integral parts of an installation which treats raw material, cotton linters, through various stages to produce a yarn used in the production of textiles. The entire plant consists of pipe lines, pumps, motors, and numerous individual machines, some of which are of American manufacture and others imported.

The particular machines involved herein receive the material after it has been cleaned and washed and subject it to heating, bleaching,

« AnteriorContinuar »