that it was used to ornament or to edge a garment; that he had read the definitions in the case of Davies, Turner & Company v. United States, 39 CCPA 76, C.A.D. 476, and that he agreed with the definitions contained therein; that the only border on exhibit 1 is the selvage; that this cut edge of the fabric is done for ornamentation in the same manner as a plaid would be woven into a fabric, namely, to enhance the beauty of the material; that a fringe is never part of the material, but is sewn on in a manner similar to lace.

While the description of the manufacturing process is rather sketchy, an examination of the fabric and the description of manufacture appear to establish that the extensions of the warp thread at the so-called lines and the subsequent cutting free one end of these threads created an article similar to the "fringe" in the cases involving mufflers in St. Andrews Textile Co., Inc. v. United States, 32 CCPA 117, C.A.D. 294, and Rogers Peet Co. v. United States, 42 CCPA 221, C.A.D. 597.

In the St. Andrews case, supra, bolts of woven wool goods, intended for use as mufflers, having weft threads omitted at intervals to indicate length and form a fringe, were held to be properly dutiable under the provision for articles in part of fringe in paragraph 1529 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, rather than under the provisions of paragraph 1115 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The court therein held that a fringe for tariff purposes could include those manufactured at the time the article was being manufactured, citing Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. v. United States, 27 CCPA 354, C.A.D. 111.

In the Kohlberg case, certain gloves having lace cuffs, which lace was created at the same time as the gloves were manufactured, were held to fall within the purview of paragraph 1529 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The question of the applicability of the preexistence rule was thoroughly discussed and found not to be applicable to “articles * * * in part," under paragraph 1529 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The court therein stated:

*** It is our view that Congress never intended that the provision "articles * * * in part thereof" should be given such an interpretation as to make it subject to the application of the said principle of a preexisting component material, and the language of the provision, we think, clearly implies that a thing may be a part of the article referred to even though the part was produced in connection with the production of the article itself. **

A lengthy and learned discussion of the preexistence rule and the case of Cohen & Lewis v. United States, 25 CCPA 220, T.D. 49335, is contained in the above decision.

In the Rogers Peet case, supra, individual mufflers, having a fringe produced at the same time the mufflers were produced, were held to be in part fringe, for the reasoning given in the St. Andrews case, supra.

It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the extension of the warp thread produced on the involved material, in at least the manner of production, is a fringe for tariff purposes. Whether a fringe for tariff purposes must be an edge or border is the remaining question to be determined.

Davies, Turner & Company v. United States, 39 CCPA 76, C.A.D. 466, cited by both parties and relied upon by plaintiff, contains numerous definitions of the term "fringe," set forth as follows:

Century Dictionary & Cyclopedia (1911) ***

1. An ornamental bordering formed of short lengths of thread, whether loose or twisted, or of twisted cord more or less fine, variously arranged or combined, projecting from the edge of the material ornamented.-Fringe may consist of the frayed or raveled edge of the piece of stuff ornamented, but is generally of other material, often made very solid and ponderous, the cords being of tightly twisted silk or of gold or silver thread of considerable thickness and length.

Webster's New International Dictionary (1920) * * *

1. An ornamental border or material for borders consisting sometimes of projecting ends of a fabric twisted or plaited together, and sometimes of loose threads of wool, silk, or linen, or strips of leather, or the like, attached to a band of the same material.

Webster's New International Dictionary (1928) * *

1. An ornamental border or material for borders consisting sometimes of projecting ends of a fabric twisted or plaited together, and sometimes of loose threads of wool, silk, or linen, or strips of leather, or the like, attached to a band of the same material.

The New Century Dictionary (1929) *** An ornamental bordering having projecting lengths of thread, cord, etc., either loose or variously arranged or combined; also, anything resembling or suggesting this (as, a fringe of hair over the forehead; a fringe of trees about a field); a border or margin. Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1931)

1. An ornamental border or trimming of pendent cords, loose threads, or tassels.

Webster's New International Dictionary (1934)

1. An ornamental border or material for borders consisting of projecting ends of a fabric twisted or plaited together, or of loose threads of wool, silk, linen or strips of leather, etc., on a band of the same material.

Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary (1941). An ornamental border or trimming of pendent cords, loose threads, or tassels.

Based upon these definitions, the court held the cheesecloth involved therein not to be in part fringe, because the fringe was not ornamental. In the case at bar, the so-called lines with extension of warp threads were for style. However, plaintiff herein relies upon the fact that they are not borders or material for borders. The record contains ample testimony, and illustrative exhibits 2 and 3 also show that suits and entire coats are made of the imported material and that they are not border or border material.

In addition to the foregoing definitions set forth in the Davies, Turner case, supra, we have reviewed the Summaries of Tariff Information, 1929 and 1948, which make the following comment on fringe:

Summary of Tariff Information, 1929:

** Fringes are trimmings which are straight or indented on one edge and have ends hanging down on the other; these hanging threads are in some cases knotted by hand.

Summaries of Tariff Information, 1948:

Fringe. A form of woven trimming with one edge straight or scalloped and with loose threads hanging from the other edge, these latter usually knotted together in groups by hand. The straight or scalloped edge is sewed to the article to be ornamented. In contradistinction to such applied fringes there are also fringes which are an integral part of the article, made by projecting warp ends which are usually knotted in groups by hand.

Consistent with the lack of the requirement that fringe must be utilized on borders or as border material, is the definition set forth in "The Modern Textile Dictionary," published by Duell, Sloan & Pearce, Inc., 1957 edition:

A trimming consisting of long or short projecting ends either applied or worked from the fabric itself. Usually found on curtains, drapes, sashes, uniform embellishments, etc.

Based upon the foregoing and the record as made herein, we are of the opinion that while fringe may be used on a border or as border material, it is not limited to said use. It is ofttimes said, in the field of customs jurisprudence, that a sample is a potent witness. An examination of the sample of the cloth and other exhibits convinces this court that the involved fabric is in part of fringe and is, accordingly, subject to classification under the provisions of paragraph 1529 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, supra, as classified. The protest is, accordingly, overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

(C.D. 2419)

WILLIAM ADAMS, INC. v. UNITED STATES

Table or household articles, composed of decorated glass

The merchandise in question consists of certain glassware which, in its condition as imported, had been subjected to a series of processes, clearly identifying the items as table or household articles, composed of glass, of the kind or class provided for in paragraph 218(f), Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802. That each of the articles, at the time of importation, had a small hole drilled through the bottom at the center, which serves as

the means for fitting a metal base, or other attachment, with which the imported glassware is used, does not affect the classification of the merchandise as table or household articles, where, as shown by plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence herein, the items, as imported, are definitely committed to use as such articles and unfit for any other purpose.

United States Customs Court, First Division

Protest 61/12654 against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York

[Judgment for defendant.]

(Decided November 4, 1963)

Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell, David Serko, and Allan H. Kamnitz of counsel) for the plaintiff.

John W. Douglas, Assistant Attorney General (Mollie Strum and Herbert L. Warren, trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Before OLIVER and WILSON, Judges

OLIVER, Chief Judge: This protest relates to certain glassware which was classified under paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802 and T.D. 51898, that provides forTable and kitchen articles and utensils, and all articles of every description not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of glass, blown or partly blown in the mold or otherwise, or colored, cut, engraved, etched, frosted, gilded, ground (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers or for purposes other than ornamentation), painted, printed in any manner, sandblasted, silvered, stained, or decorated or ornamented in any manner, whether filled or unfilled, or whether their contents be dutiable or free (except articles primarily designed for ornamental purposes, decorated chiefly by engraving and valued at not less than $8 each):

If commercially known as bubble glass and pro-
duced otherwise than by automatic machine
(except articles cut or engraved and valued at
not less than $1 each).

Christmas tree ornaments_
Other

30% ad val.

50% ad val.

50¢ on each article

or utensil, but not

less than 30% nor

more than 50% ad val.

Duty was levied on the present merchandise at 50 cents each or 50 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff's principal claim is for classification under the residuary provision in paragraph 230(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 52739, for "All glass, and manufactures of glass, or of which glass is the component of chief value, not specially provided for," carrying a duty assessment at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem. An alternative claim is made for classification under the pro

721-090-6410

visions of paragraph 218(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 53865, supplemented by T.D. 53877, reading as follows:

All articles (not including table and kitchen articles and utensils) of every description not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of glass, blown or partly blown in the mold or otherwise, or colored, cut, engraved, etched, frosted, gilded, ground (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers or for purposes other than ornamentation), painted, printed in any manner, sandblasted, silvered, stained, or decorated or ornamented in any manner, whether filled or unfilled, or whether their contents be dutiable or free:

Christmas tree ornaments valued under $7.50 per gross------ 40% ad val. Other, valued not over $1.66% each (except Christmas tree ornaments, household articles, and articles and utensils commercially known as bubble glass and produced otherwise than by automatic machine; and except articles and utensils blown or partly blown in the mold or otherwise and cut or engraved and valued at $1 or more each) --- 30% ad val. Counsel for the respective parties, in their briefs, devote much discussion to the question of the precise issue before us. Thus, it is appropriate, at this point, to analyze the provisions of paragraph 218(f), as modified, supra. Paragraph 218(f), as modified by T.D. 51802, invoked herein by the collector, specifically provides for "Table and kitchen articles," and then, through the use of all-comprehensive language, includes "all articles of every description not specially provided for," made or composed of glass in the manner described therein; and paragraph 218(f), as modified by T.D. 53865, supplemented by T.D. 53877, excepts from the lower rate of 30 per centum ad valorem imposed thereunder, table, kitchen, and household articles. It, therefore, follows that if the merchandise involved herein consists of table, kitchen, or household articles, it is properly classifiable under the provisions of paragraph 218(f), as modified by T.D. 51802, and subject to the higher rate assessed by the collector.

Five items, identified on the invoices as D-1, D-4-A, D-5, D-6, and D-9, are in dispute. Samples of three of them are in evidence. They have the general appearance either of a dish, item D-1 (plaintiff's exhibit 1) and item D-6 (plaintiff's exhibit 2), or a plate, item D-4-A (plaintiff's exhibit 3). Each of those items is composed of decorated glass, having a "star" pattern. Two other items in question, represented on the invoices as D-5 and D-9, of which no samples were produced, are of identical quality, but slightly different in shape. It is agreed between the parties that the glassware in question is not bubble glass, that it is pressed and polished, and that it was decorated in the mold, but not blown or partly blown in the mold. The significant feature in all of the items involved herein is a small hole, approximately one-eighth of an inch in diameter, that has been drilled through the bottom at the center and which serves as the means for fitting a