Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

June 30, 1864.-Sec. 4. On all wool, unmanufactured, and all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, unmanufactured

That any wool of the sheep, or hair of the alpaca, the goat, and other like animals

July 28, 1866.-* * * in determining the dutiable value of merchandise * * * provided further that nothing herein contained shall apply to long-combing or carpet wools *

March 2, 1867.-* there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all unmanu. actured wool, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals *

* All wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals, as aforesaid, shall be divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into three classee, to wit:

Class 1. Clothing wool. That is to say, merino, mestiza, metz, or metis wools or other wools of merino blood, immediate or remote; down clothing wools, and wools of like character with any of the preceding, including such as have been heretofore usually imported into the United States from * *, and also including all wools not hereinafter described or designated in classes two and three.

Class 2. Combing wool. That is to say, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Down combing wools, or other like combing woole of English blood, and usually known by the terms herein used; and also all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals.

Class 3. Carpet wools, and other similar wools. Such as Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, native Smyrna, and including all such wools of like character as have been heretofore usually imported into the United States from Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere.

June 6, 1872.-Sec. 2. On all wools, hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals and all manufactures wholly or in part of wool or hair of the alpaca and other like animals, except as hereinafter provided (90 per cent of duty of 1867, the tax imposed being 90 per cent of the then existing duty).

March 3, 1883.-Schedule K.-Wool and woolens. All wools, hair of the alpaca, and other like animals, shall be divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon into the three following classes: Class one, clothing wools. That is to say,

(Same as in 1867). Class two. Combing wools. That is to say, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Down combing wools, Canada long wools, or other like combing wools of English blood, and usually known by the terms herein used, and also all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals.

Class three. Carpet wools, and other similar wools. (Same as in 1867.)

October 1890.--All wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals shall be divided for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon into the three following classes: Class one. That is to say

(Same as in 1883.) Class two. That is to say

(Same as in 1883.) Class three. That is to say, Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, native Smyrna, Russian camel's hair, and including all such wools of like character as have been heretofore usually imported into the United States from Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere, excepting improved wools hereinafter provided for.

August 27, 1894.-Free list. Par. 685. All wool of the sheep, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals, and all wool and hair on the skin, noils, yarn waste, card waste, bur waste, slubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, and all waste, or rags composed wholly or in part of wool, all the foregoing not otherwise provided for.

July 24, 1897.-All wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals shall be divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon, into the three following classes:

Class one, that is to say, merino, mestiza, metz, or metis wools, or other wools of Merino blood, immediate or remote, Down clothing wools, and wools of like character with any of the preceding, including Bagdad wool, China lamb's wool, Castel Branco,

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Adrianople skin wool or butcher's wool, and such as have been heretofore usually imported into the United States

and all wools not hereinafter included in classes two and three.

Class two, that is to say, Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Down clothing wools, Canada long wools, or other like combing wools of English blood, and usually known by the terms herein used, and also hair of the camel, Angora goat, alpaca, and other like animals.

Class three, that is to say, Donskoi, native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, native Smyrna, Russian camel's hair, and all such wools of like character as have been heretofore usually imported into the United States from Turkey, Greece, Syria, and elsewhere, excepting improved wools hereinafter provided for.

August 5, 1909. 360. All wools, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals, shall be divided, for the purpose of fixing the duties to be charged thereon into the three following classes: 361. Class one, that is to say, merino

(Same as in 1897.) 362. Class two, that is to say, Leicester

(Same as in 1897.) 363. Class three, that is to say, Donskoi

(Same as in 1897.) October 3, 1913.-Free list. Par. 650. Wool of the sheep, hair of the camel, and other like animals, and all wools and hair on the skin of such animals, and paper twine for binding any of the foregoing. This paragraph shall be effective on and after the first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirteen, until which time the rates of duty now provided by Schedule K of the existing law shall remain in full force and effect.

Nowhere in the century and a quarter gone will you find in its written word, in woolen tariff legislation, anything to indicate that Congress did not fully understand the meaning of its words, or that it did not apply and carefully select them with a view to informing those to whom the law was directed exactly what kind of merchandise they were to deal with. We are not unmindful of the rules invoked by the Government that the intent of the law is the law, and that courts must not impute to the legislature the doing of a ridiculous, vain, or absurd thing. If the words used were susceptible of more than one reasonable construction we would have a different question. For this court to hold that the phrase "commonly known as clothing wool” embraces and includes "combing wool” would be for this court to legislate, and thereby usurp the functions of Congress. From many viewpoints this might be desirable in this case, but it would be embarking upon a very dangerous and uncertain course, which precedent, if followed, would lead to disastrous consequences. The rule laid down in Elliott v. Swartwout, supra, in our judgment should be followed, and a strict adherence to this principle, which, for the most part, has been adhered to in the past, will be conducive to the best understanding of and fullest compliance with the purposes of legislation.

If we expect proper respect for laws and a compliance with their provisions; if we hope for a proper understanding in the administration of them, the meaning justified by the words used must not be overthrown by extrinsic circumstances. We hold that when Congress used the phrase "commonly known as clothing wool,” it knew that there was a definite kind of wool known to its citizens who were familiar with the question as “clothing wool," and that it must be declared to have intended the ordinary and usual meaning of its words. Clothing wool does not embrace combing wool. Combing wool, and products made therefrom, are the goods in controversy. Combing wool, on date of the entry, was on the free list of the act of 1913. The protests should have been sustained. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

(Rehearing denied February 9, 1924.]

BLAND, Judge: Replying to the Government's brief, on petition for rehearing, importers have conceded, as the Government claims, that Exhibit 13 was not combing wool but was clothing wool. The opinion of this court in this case, we think, is sufficiently clear to indicate how Exhibit 13 should be classified, but to obviate any doubt on the question as to how it should be classified, we find that Exhibit 13 was in fact clothing wool.

Accordingly the judgment heretofore entered by the court is modified so as to affirm the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers with respect to the merchandise represented by Exhibit 13. In all other particulars our former judgment is reaffirmed, and the petition for a rehearing is denied.

UNITED STATES v. RICE & FIELDING, INC. (No. 2286).

1. CONSTRUCTION, PARAGRAPHS 18 AND 19, TARIFF Act of 1921.

By paragraphs 18 and 19, emergency tariff act of 1921, Congress intended to declare that wool, commonly known as clothing wool, as well as the hair of the camel, if advanced in any manner beyond the washed or scoured condition, should, for the short period during which the emergency act would be in force, pay the rates of duty therein provided, regardless of a recognized tariff entity under the act of 1913 and regardless, also, of whether under the preceding act

such hair was dutiable or free. 2. CAMEL'S-HAIR Noils-EVIDENCE-PRESUMPTION FAVORS COLLECTOR.

Camel's-hair noils made by combing scoured camel's hair are camel's hair advanced beyond the washed or scoured condition and were classifiable as such under paragraph 19, emergency tariff act of 1921, rather than entitled to free entry as noils under paragraph 651, tariff act of 1913. The protestant, having failed to show that the merchandise was entitled to free entry, the Board of United States General Appraisers should have sustained the assessment of the collector at the same rate under paragraph 18, emergency tariff act of 1921.

1 T. D. 40020.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, November 17, 1923.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 8629 (T. D. 39558).

(Reversed.]

William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Charles D. Lawrence, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States. Waterhouse & Lockett (William E. Waterhouse of counsel) for appellee.

[Oral argument October 18, 1923, by Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Waterhouse.) Before MARTIN, Presiding Judge, and SMITH, BARBER, and BLAND, Associate

Judges.

*

*

BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

The merchandise in this case is camel's-hair noils. The invoice describes it as "camel-hair noils, other than carbonized, made from the hair of the camel,” and states that it has been thoroughly washed and scoured and was free from any contagious disease. In the entry it is described as “camel-hair noils, scoured-combed—sorted,” and it was entered as dutiable at 45 cents per pound.

The collector classified and assessed it at 45 cents per pound under the provisions of the emergency tariff act of May 22, 1921. The importer protested and the Board of General Appraisers, one member dissenting, sustained the protest.

In this court the importer relies upon paragraph 651 of the act of 1913 which gives free entry to "Wool wastes: All noils and all other waste not specially provided for.” We quote paragraph 18 of the emergency act:

Wool, commonly known as clothing wool, including hair of the camel, angora goat, and alpaca, but not such wools as are commonly known as carpet wools: Unwashed, 15 cents per pound; washed, 30 cents per pound; scoured, 45 cents per pound. Unwashed wools shall be considered such as shall have been shorn from the animal without any cleaning; washed wools shall be considered such as have been washed with water only on the animal's back or on the skin; wools washed in any other manner than on the animal's back or on the skin shall be considered as scoured wool. On wool and hair provided for in this paragraph which is sorted or increased in value by the rejection of any part of the original fleece, the duty shall be twice the duty to which it would otherwise be subject, but not more than 45 cents per pound.

Paragraph 19 of that act provides that "wool and hair of the kind provided for in paragraph 18 when advanced in any manner or by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condi

*

shall be dutiable at 45 cents per pound in addition to the rates of duty imposed thereon by existing law.

The collector reports that he assessed the merchandise under paragraph 18 and the arguments in this court relate mainly to the applicability of that paragraph, although the Government contends that if not dutiable thereunder, paragraph 19 is determinative of the issue.

In the opinion of the majority of the board no especial consideration was given to the applicability of paragraph 19, it being concluded

tion," *

that these noils had such a separate tariff entity under the act of. 1913 that they were not intended to be covered by the cited paragraphs of the emergency act.

The dissenting general appraiser seems to have based his conclusion upon the ground that the noils were dutiable under paragraph 19.

It is the duty of the importer not only to show that the collector has erred in his assessment but to show that the merchandise is not dutiable. In this view it becomes important to ascertain whether paragraph 19 may not control the assessment here and it will be noted that the duty provided therein upon this merchandise, if within its provision, will be the same as under paragraph 18.

The evidence shows that these noils are composed of short fibers that are thrown off as waste in the process of combing camel's hair to obtain a top and that generally the price of camel's hair per pound exceeds the price of noils per pound, dependent upon the market fluctuations. Such noils would not be regarded in the wool trade as clothing wool although used, generally with other materials, in the manufacture of fabrics. One substantial use is in the manufacture of blankets. It is also used in making clothing. One of the importer's witnesses testified, without contradiction, that camel's hair was carded before it was combed and that in its imported condition it was ready to be used as a material, either alone or in connection with other substances, in the production of fabrics. A witness for the Government, likewise without contradiction, gave substantially the same testimony and said that some waste usually resulted from the carding process.

It is conceded that the camel's hair was washed and scoured before these noils were produced. Therefore, without passing upon their dutiability under paragraph 18 we see no escape from the conclusion that these noils are dutiable under paragraph 19 of the emer

gency act.

Although noils, they are also camel's hair advanced equally with the tops produced at the same time. In other words, the original camel's hair by the combing process has been separated into two articles, one known as tops and the other as noils, but each still is camel's hair advanced. Clearly this hair has been advanced beyond the washed or scoured condition. Paragraph 19 does not provide that wool or hair must be advanced by any process of manufacture beyond the washed or scoured condition but declares that if advanced in any manner beyond that condition, they shall be dutiable.

We think it was the intention of Congress as manifested by paragraphs 18 and 19 to declare that wool, commonly known as clothing wool, as well as the hair of the camel, if advanced in any manner beyond the washed or scoured condition, should, for the short period

« AnteriorContinuar »