« AnteriorContinuar »
Bayonets-Side arms.-T. D. 32049–31477, paragraph 153.
Bayonets—Side arms.–T. D. 31477, T. D. 32049, paragraph 153.
Parts of guns.-Provisions of paragraph 157, tariff act of 1909, construed.-Only such parts of guns as are suitable for use only on single-barreled breech-loading shotguns to be assessed at $1 each and 35 per cent ad valorem. Treasury Department, May 10, 1912. (T. D. 32497.)
Enameled steel ware— Metal shades.-Steel light shades enameled with vitreous glass, and bell-like in form, are within the purview of paragraph 158, tariff act of 1909, and are classifiable under the provision in said paragraph for "other similar hollow ware,” rather than under paragraph 199 of said act, as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. United States General Appraisers, New York, July 19, 1910. In the matter of protest 414998 of Thomas Meadows & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. (T. D. 30825; G. A. 7077.)
No. 25050. Enameled steel ware-Light shades.- Protests 452878, etc., of Thomas Meadows & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Steel light shades enam. eled with vitreous glass were held dutiable as hollow ware under paragraph 158, tariff act of 1909, as claimed by the importers. G. A. 7077 (T. D. 30825) followed. (T. D. 31380.)
Enameled dials.-T. D. 31654, paragraph 192.
Iron washers.-(1) Washers-Metal articles. Metal washers with an improved device to prevent the nut from slipping after it has been properly fastened are dutiable properly as “washers" under paragraph 162, tariff act of 1909, rather than as manufactures of metal not specially provided for, paragraph 199 of said act. (2) Washers-Parts of automobiles. A patented metal washer, though it may be used on automo biles, having no special adaptation for that purpose, and in fact commonly and practically used otherwise, is dutiable as a “washer” rather than as “parts of automobiles.” United States General Appraisers, New York, September 17, 1910. (T. D. 30933; G. A. 7101 )
Lock washers.-- United States v. Motor Car Equipment Co. (No. 764). Washers for automobiles. The authorities concur in the conclusion that lock washers or nut locks such as these of the importation, intended for use on automobiles, are an evolution of the common washer, and they are properly to be designated “washers.” The importation is dutiable as such under paragraph 162, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures of steel not specially provided for. United States Court of Customs Appeals, March 20, 1912. (T. D. 32355 affirming T. D. 31864.)
Thumb tacks.-T. D. 32681, paragraph 199.
PARAGRAPH 164. No. 28807.-Embroidery-machine needles.- Protests 560215, etc., of Robert Reiner (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Embroidery-machine needles assessed under paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, were claimed free of duty under the proviso to paragraph 1974. Protests overruled, following Abstract 25775 (T. D. 31675). (T. D. 32618.)
Needlecases— Needlebooks.--Material-Component material-Articles composed chiefly of needles. As to needlecases and needlebooks, dutiable by the express terms of paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, as "entireties,” and which are made up of books or cases of paper, or other material, in which are placed assortments of steel needles and other sewing requisites, Held that the material determining their classification is either metal, paper, leather, etc.; and such articles are dutiable under paragraphs 199, 420, and 452, according to material, by virtue of the final clause in paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, rather than as unenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480, or as “needles" under paragraphs 164 and 633. United States General Appraisers, New York, November 3, 1910. (T. D. 31026; G. A. 7119.)
Needlecases— Needlebooks.-By virtue of the provision in paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, that “needlecases or needlebooks furnished with assortments of needles
* and other articles, shall pay duty as entireties according to the component material of chief value," as construed in Steinhardt v. United States (T. D. 32092), such furnished needle cases or books are dutiable at the same rate as the component article of chief value, and it is not necessary that said component article be designated eo nomine. Held, accordingly, that such as are composed in chief value of hand sew. ing needles are dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480 of said act, such as are in chief value of paper cases, as manufactures of paper (par. 420), and such as are in chief value of leather cases, as manufactures of leather or as leather cases (par 452). United States General Appraisers, New York May 17, 1912. (T. D. 32528; G. A. 7367.)
Needlecases— Needlebooks.—Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States. (No. 536.) Needlebooks, containing needles and the like. Needlebooks, containing needles and the like articles, are not dutiable as manufactures in chief value of metal. Paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, singles them out and establishes a rule for the determination of their dutiable status, and that is according to the chief components included within and going to make up the entirety. The importations were dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under the provisions of paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909.—Hartranft v. Sheppard (125 U. S., 337.) United States Court of Customs Appeals, December 6, 1911. (T. D. 32092.)
Needle threaders.--T. D. 31347; paragraph 199.
No. 23431. Cork floats-Fishing tackle.--Protests 386543, etc., of A. W. Fenton, jr., et al. (Cleveland). Merchandise invoiced as manufactures of cork and classified under the provision for fishing tackle or parts thereof in paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 429, relating to manufactures of cork' not specially provided for. Fischer, General Appraiser:
* * The only issue raised is whether the corks here in question are within the provision for "fishing tackle or parts thereof." It is urged that they inust be further manipulated in order to convert them into floats, and as they are not finished cork floats they are not dutiable under the provision above noted. The corks approach nearly their finished condition, afford sufficient evidence as to their special adaptation for use as floats, and would then appear to us to be dutiable as “parts” of fishing tackle. In Abstract 19740 (T. D. 29288) the board in passing on rough-bored rifle barrels held that in paragraph 157, tariff act of 1897, relating to "rifles and parts thereof,” the provision for "parts" was not to be limited to such as were in a finished condition and ready for adjustment, but included rough-bored barrels that had been sufficiently
elaborated to be specially adapted for use as rifle barrels. Note G. A. 4693 (T. D. 22143); G. A. 5847 (T. D. 25766). On appeal from the ruling in Abstract 19740 (supra), the board was affirmed. United States v. Riga (171 Fed. Rep., 783; T. D. 29854). On the authority of the previous rulings of the board, and the above-cited affirmance in the Riga case, we overrule the protests. (T. D. 30667.) Reversed (T. D. 31546), paragraph 429.
No. 25736. Cork floats, Fishing tackle.- Protest 481266 of C. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis). Fischer, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of finished cork floats ready for the angler's use, and these articles were assessed for duty at 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909.' It is claimed that the merchandise is dutiable properly at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 429, or 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 463.
The cork floats here in question are complete and fully finished articles. They are ready for use by the fisherman, and are accordingly classifiable under paragraph 165, either as "fishing tackle” or as “parts thereof.". Fenton v. United States (T. D. 31546). The protest is overruled and the surveyor's decision affirmed. (T. D. 31654.)
Gut leaders-Parts of fishing tackle.-Worm gut made into leaders and snells for fishing purposes is dutiahle under paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909, as "all other fishing
tackle or parts thereof,” rather than as manufactures in chief value of worm gut under paragraph 462 of said act. United States General Appraisers, New York, December 29, 1910. (T. D. 31161; G. A. 7142.) No.
24217. Hemp cords—Cod lines.- Protest 400994 of Weeks, Howe, Emerson Co. (San Francisco). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Cod lines were claimed to be dutiable as cordage under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1909. Protest overruled. (T. D. 31070.)
No. 28811. Quill floats. - Protest 481267 of C. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Quill floats classified under paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909, as fishing tackle, claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 463. Protest overruled following Abstract 25736 (T. D. 31654). (T. D. 32618.)
Agate rings for fishing rods.-T. D. 32766, paragraph 112.
Old electrotypes and stereotypes.-(1) Commercial designation. The determination of the common or ordinary meaning is a matter of law for the court or board. The trade or commercial meaning, is a fact to be proved by competent evidence. (2) Same. Proof as to whether a given article is or is not included by trade meaning within a certain term or phrase used in the tariff is material only after proof has been adduced showing that such term or phrase is used in the trade and that its trade meaning differs from its common or ordinary meaning. (3) Junk, old—Metals, sorted—Lead and type metal. Congress did not use the term “junk” in the free list in its broad generic sense, and sorted articles of metal which are to be used for the purposes of the typo metal of commerce, though in the nature of old material, are provided for under the metal schedule rather than under the general classification of junk. (4) Stereotypes and electrotypes, old. Held as to shipments of old electrotypes and stereotype plates that such merchandise is subject to classification as "type metal,” paragraph 191, tariff act of 1909, or as metal articles, paragraph 199, rather than as "junk, old,” paragraph 600, as “waste, not specially provided for,” paragraph 479, as "types, old,” paragraph 702, or as stereotype plates, or “electrotype plates,” paragraph 166. United States General Appraisers, New York, April 12, 1912. (T. D. 32395; G. A.7347.) Steel pattern rolls dies.-T. D. 31866, paragraph 199.
PARAGRAPH 167. No. 23661. Steel rivets.- Protest 409139 of Michelin Tire Co. (New York). Certain rivets classified under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1909, as “rivets for nonskidding automobile tires,' were claimed to be dutiable under the same paragraph as "rivets of iron or steel, not specially provided for.”, Protest sustained. Fischer, General Appraiser: *
The importers' claim is limited to such as are contained in case R. P. 5117, and these are ordinary metal rivets about one-half inch in length with a flat head.
The articles are flat-head rivets of steel, and the testimony shows that the said rivet after it is imported is "lathed on a machine, very accurately, and after the machine work on it is finished it is heated and case-hardened, making it very hard.” As imported the rivets are not used for antiskid tires; they are in a finished form of an ordinary steel rivet, and do not afford sufficient evidence as to their special adaptation for use for nonskidding automobile tires as would warrant their classification under that clause. They are merely rivets, not necessarily material for an autotire at all, and not susceptible of being used as such without undergoing a process of manufacture. Worthington v. Robbins (139 U. S., 337). These rivets, not having been “lathed, machined, or brightened,” are classifiable, as claimed, under paragraph 167 as “rivets of iron or steel, not specially provided for.” (T. D. 30768.)
Old scrap axles and tires.-T. D. 30489, paragraph 118.
No. 27928. Bronze in leaj--0e er foil : - Protests 525837, etc., of John Campbell & Co. (New York). Fischer, General Appraiser: The merchandise is invoiced as bronze leaves and is in the form of patent “Oeser” foils. Duty was assessed at 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of
metal not specially provided for. The merchandise is claimed dutiable at 6 cents per 100 leaves under the provision in paragraph 175 of said act, for “ bronze * * in leaf.” The article here is a bronze in the form of a leaf used in stamping and bronzing. It is a specially prepared leaf of bronze, the back of which is in the nature of a collodion material attached to the metal by the use of amyl acetate. This metal leaf is used by bookbinders and by the stamping trade and is termed, after the name of the party who first manufactured it, “Oeser" foil. The material is, in fact, bronze "in teaf,' and while it
eta hinned down under a hammer to a thin sheet, it is, as imported, a leaf of bronze metal available for the use to which bronze in beaten thin sheets is put, and we are of the opinion that it is covered by the language of the paragraph in question. The claim in the protests at 6 cents per 100 leaves under paragraph 175 is sustained. Reliquidation will accordingly follow.
No. 23297. Vetal thread-Cordonnet.- Protest 401102 of W. H. Horstmann Co. (Philadelphia). Goods in voiced as “cordonnet” and classified as metal-thread trimmings under paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be dutiable under the provision in the same paragraph for metal thread. Fischer, General Appraiser.
We find from the testimony offered, and upon an examination of the sample admitted in evidence, that the articles described as “cordonnet” on the invoice are metal threads of the character of the goods passed on by the board in G. A. 5259 (T. D. 24157), following which we sustain the claim in the protest. (T. D. 30615.)
Metal-thread beltings.-(1) Metal-thread beltings—Metal thread-Metal. Congress has provided, in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, for metal thread as a material, and thus distinguished it from the material metal. The provision in paragraph 349 of said act for “beltings *
cotton, india rubber, and metal" is, therefore, not applicable to metal-thread beltings. (2) Same. Beltings of metal thread, cotton, and india rubber, metal thread chief value, are dutiable as “beltings
in chief value of * metal threads,” under paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, and not as “beltings *
* india rubber, and metal,” under paragraph 349 of said act, the provision in paragraph 179 being unlimited, while that in paragraph 349 is qualified by the phrase “not elsewhere specially provided for." United States General Appraisers, New York, October 27, 1911. (T. D. 31968; G. A. 7291.)
So-called tinsel wire.-Flat wire in width 22 Birmingham gauge and in thickness 32 Birmingham wire gauge dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Treasury Department, June 7, 1912. (T. D. 32609.)
No. 25919. Tinsel-wire toys.- Protest 447618–34868 of Butler Bros. (Chicago). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The articles, Christmas-tree ornaments of various shapes, made entirely of tinsel or lame, were assessed with duty at the rate of 15 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, as “tinsel toys.” The importers claim under paragraph 431 as
toys" not specially provided for. This provision of the law covers these tinsel-wire articles, whether they are or are not toys. The collector's assessment is affirmed and the protest overruled. (T. D. 31720.)
Metal laces made on the Gothrough machine.-T. D. 31236, paragraph 350.
Lead and zinc ores.- Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United
( States (No. 427). (1) Tariff hearings, relevancy of proceedings at. In determining the intention with which language has been employed in a paragraph of a tariff act some ambiguity therein must be apparent to warrant a resort to the "side lights” obtainable from tariff hearings. (2) Lead-hearing and zinc-bearing ores. A commodity, it is true, is properly assessable in its condition as imported, but where ore, as here, is shown to have contained, as imported, both lead and zinc, the zinc appearing in a quantity exceeding 10 per cent, the metal content in both is dutiable, the lead under paragraph 181, the zinc under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, April 10, 1911. (T. D. 31509.)
Matte containing copper and lead.-So-called copper matte containing in excess of 10 per cent of lead properly dutiable at the rate of 1} cents per pound on the lead contents under paragraph 181, tariff act of 1909. Treasury Department, April 26, 1912. (T. D. 32439.) Ores containing lead and zinc.—Zinc-bearing ores-Lead-bearing ores.
Ores containing both lead and zinc are dutiable not only on the lead content as provided for under paragraph 181, tariff act of 1909, but are also liable to the duties provided for the zinc content, paragraph 193 of said act. United States General Appraisers, New York, June 27, 1910. (T. D. 30727; G. A. 7049.)
Lead withdrawn from bonded smelting warehouse.—(1) Lead bullion smelted in bond. Where imported lead bullion is smelted in a bonded smelting warehouse and a portion of the product is withdrawn for domestic consumption in the form of antimonial lead (or type metal), duty must be paid upon the whole weight of the metal withdrawn at the rate provided in paragraph 182, tariff act of 1909, for "lead bullion," or "lead," rather than at the rate provided in paragraph 191 for "type metal.” (2) Same-Duty on withdrawal. Upon the importation of the lead bullion" the right of the Govern. ment to duties under paragraph 182 accrued, and can not be impaired unless there is some saving clause elsewhere in the act. The provision of section 24, that on the withdrawal for domestic consumption, from a bonded smelting warehouse, of the lead produced from the smelting of the crude metal, there shall be paid "the duties chargeable against it in that condition,” is applicable only to a withdrawal of lead—that is, commercial lead. It does not permit the product to bear a less rate of duty when withdrawn than when imported. (Reversed T. D. 31955.) (3) Privileges or exemptions-Strict construction. The grant of a privilege, or exemption, such as is contained in section 24, is to be construed most favorably to the Government. United States General Appraisers, New York, January 11, 1911. (T. D. 31201; G. A. 7148.)
Dross of tin, lead, and zinc.-T, D. 32333, paragraph 183.
No. 23626. Alloy of iron and cerium.—Protest 413909 of E. Stegmann, jr. (Now York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. The merchandise consisted of a metal alloy of iron and cerium, classified under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, relating to manufactures of metal. The importer contended the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 183, relating to metals unwrought. Protest sustained. Note Abstract 22642 (T. Ď. 30314). (T. D. 30754.)
No. 27925. Dross of tin, lead, zinc, etc.- Unwrought metal.-- Protests 552561, etc. of William A. Brown & Co. (New York).
FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise is a dross composed of various metals, such as either lead, tin, zinc, etc., or of lead, antimony, copper, tin, etc. It is imported to be refined and made over into new metal. Duty was assessed at 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 183, tariff act of 1909, as “metals unwrought.” The importers claim that the dross is either free of duty under paragraph 695, or dutiable at 2} cents per pound under paragraph 182. We are of the opinion that the dross here in question is classifiable under paragraph 183, as assessed by the collector. The board passed on dross containing both lead and tin and held the same dutiable as “metals unwrought" under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 6746 (T. D. 28909) and Abstract 23116 (T. D. 30547). The evidence here offered is of no great weight, and we find no sufficient reason to arrive at conclusion at variance with that as expressed in our previous rulings on solder dross and other dross containing both lead and tin. Again, as persuasive, it appears that the attention of Congress was invited to merchandise of this very character, and, although the new act as it was when passed originally by the House of Representatives contained a provision which read lead dross, including all dross containing lead” (par. 179), this added provision for all dross containing lead was omitted from the law as finally enacted (par. 182). It would seem to follow, therefore, that such action may be considered as an aflirmance of the classification of such goods as determined in rulings under the life of the old act. We hold the dross here in question dutiable properly under paragraph 183, and overrule the protests. (T. D. 32333.)