« AnteriorContinuar »
pounds.. 3, 409, 887
(pounds.. 4,079, 920
(pounds.. 27,034, 974
is 101, 736
i Gross weight, tons; lead contents, pounds.
Rate of duty.
12 cents per pound. 29, 738, 375.00
5, 467, 93,00
6, 119, 199.00
$566, 057.15 $116, 075, 70
101,603.98 59, 393. 86
119, 158 51 82,019. 16
145, 126.34 91, 788.04
Rate of duty.
Calendar year 1920......
1 Lead contents, pounds.
Lead ore containing more than 3 per cent of lead Imports for consumption--Revenue.
The provision for lead ore in tariff acts prior to 1897 was limited to ore in chief value of lead. Where gold or silver predominated in value the ore was exempt from duty as gold or silver ore. (Dept. Orders, T. D. 4391, 7327, 7543, 8967, 9662, and 16599.) taken on the full weight of the ore when classified as lead ore (Dept. Orders, T. D. 10383, 16240, 16599; 19 Opin. Atty. Gen. 690; Collector r. Balbach Smelting & Refining Co., 81 Fed. 950) and on values in the C'nited States Dept. Orders, T. D. 11464 and 11738). In the absence of more accurate data in the invoice or otherwise, the value of the silver component was rated at 95 per cent of the latest known value of silver bullion in the New York market, and the value of the lead component at the latest known price of bar lead in the same market less 1 cent per pound. (Dept. Order, T. D. 9492.) But this practice was modified by the decision of the Board of General Appraisers that if possible the classification of the ore should be determined by the values of its components at the time and place of importation. (G. A. 485, T. D. 11042.) The practice of the Treasury Department was, nevertheless, continued, with an increase, however, to 14 cents per pound in the deduction from the price of pure lead in the New York market. (Dept. Orders, T. D. 11481, 16149, 16599.) The Board of General Appraisers shortly afterwards again held the value at the time and place of importation to be the proper basis. (G. A. 1595, T. D. 13174.) This was fully acquiesced in by the Treasury Department in instructions to customs officers that whenever the market value of lead at the port of importation was ascertainable, such value should be taken as the basis of computation. (T. D. 17000.)
The act of 1909 was held to impose duty on both lead and zinc in ores containing those two metals. (Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 472; T. D. 31509.) But copper matte and copper precipitate, or cement, were held not to be ores within the provisions for lead-bearing ore in the acts of 1897 and 1909. (Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining Co., 124 Fed. 1002; United States v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 398; Abstract 25274, T. D. 31478.) And matte composed more largely of lead than copper in quantity, more largely of silver than either lead or copper in value, and not ready for the process of smelting to recover the copper content, was held not to be copper matte and to be dutiable by similitude as a lead-bearing ore under paragraph 152 of the act of 1913. (United States v. Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 226 (T. D. 37495), reversing G. A. 7911 (T. D. 36439) and followed in G. A. 8146 (T. D. 37571) and Abstracts 42837, 43012.) In a prior decision the Treasury Department held so-called copper matte, containing more than 10 per cent of lead, to be dutiable by similitude under paragraph 181 of the act of 1909. (Dept. Order, T. D. 32439.)
In determining the amount of lead in ore containing a large amount of moisture, it was not correct to apply to it the percentage found to be contained in a sample of that ore which was artificially dried, but it was necessary to adopt some process taking account of the moisture in the ore, since duties were collectible only upon the exact amount of lead in the ore, under paragraph 181 of the act of 1897. (G. A. 6358, T. D. 27326.)
METHOD OF ASSAY.
The fire assay process and not the wet process adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury (T. D. 19370) was held to be the commercial method of assaying lead ores and the proper method under the act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat., 910, 933. In re Puget Sound Reduction Co., 96 Fed. 90. This decision was acquiesced in by the Treasury Department. (Dept. Order, T. D. 21602.) The fire process accordingly prevailed as a commercial method of assaying lead ores until 1905, when, in an unpublished letter addressed to the American Smelting & Refining Co., the Treasury Department adopted the wet assay with a reduction of 14 per cent as the equivalent of the fire assay and the more scientific method of determining the lead con
The wet method, with the allowance indicated, was followed until 1915, when the Treasury Department discontinued the allowance of 14 per cent, for the reason that investigations made by the Department showed that the wet assay without deduction was then the commercial method. (Dept. Orders, T. D. 35216, 35219.)
An allowance of 14 per cent was declared proper by the Court of Customs Appeals. United States v. Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 406 (T. D. 37665), affirming G. A. 8044 (T. D. 37078). This decision was applied to the assay of lead in ores under paragraph 152 as well as to subsection i of paragraph N of section IV of the act of 1913 (T. D. 37688) and was followed in Abstracts 42530 and 42809.