Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Open reappraisement hearings.—Reappraisement-Open hearings. Under section 28, subsection 13, tariff act of 1909, providing that in the discretion of the Board of General Appraisers reappraisement hearings may “be open and in the presence of the importer or his attorney and any duly authorized repre sentative of the Government," it is not permissible to have a portion of the evidence admitted at an open hearing and the remainder introduced at a closed hearing, with no provision for its inspection by the opposing party. The board may, in its discretion, however, in a case where one side wishes to submit evidence procured under a pledge of secrecy, deny the request for an open hearing and have the entire proceedings closed. Somerville, G. A., dissents. United States General Appraisers, New York, March 28, 1910. (T. D. 30466; G. A. 6999.)

Validity of reappraisement.-(1) Examination of merchandise by a general appraiser. The collector of the port appealed from the action of the appraiser in the appraisement of certain machinery. Prior to this appeal and the hear. ing before the general appraiser the machinery had gone into consumption and was in use in various parts of the United States, hence not available for examination by the general appraiser. The general appraiser, upon due hearing, advanced the machinery 15 per cent, not having the machinery or samples thereof before him. (2) Same.—Held, that a reappraisement proceeding under the provisions of subsection 13 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 is only invalidated by the failure of the general appraiser to have before him the merchandise in question, or sufficient or proper samples thereof, when it appears that such samples were necessary to a proper adjudication of the case; that is, necessary to enable the general appraiser to reach a right conclusion as to the foreign market value of the merchandise. Oelrichs v. United States (T. D. 32091), modifying Tilge v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 462; T. D. 31507). United States General Appraisers, New York, December 21, 1911. (T. D. 32109; G. A. 7311.)

SUBSECTION 14-SECTION 28.

Jurisdiction-Steamship "Altenburg.”—Imported merchandise. The steamship Altenburg, arriving in the port of Philadelphia " in the ordinary course of navigation," is not imported merchandise within the meaning of the tariff act of 1909; and the Board of United States General Appraisers has no jurisdiction over a case involving an exaction of duties on such vessel, paid under protest. A subsequent conversion of the vessel into “scrap” held not to alter this rule. United States General Appraisers, New York, September 30, 1911. (T. D. 31898; G. A. 7280.)

Jurisdiction.-(1) Jurisdiction-Board of General Appraisers. Subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, gives the Board of General Appraisers jurisdiction to review the decisions of the collectors of customs in two distinct and separate respects: First, as to the rate and amount of duty chargeable upon imported merchandise, including all dutiable costs and charges; second, as to all fees and exactions of whatever character, except duties on tonnage. (2) Same-Fees and exactions-Drawbacks. The Board of United States General Appraisers has jurisdiction to review the action of the collector in charging certain fees and making certain exactions in connection with the lading of a vessel with articles manufactured in the United States, the exporter thereof having filed claims for drawback of duty paid upon the imported material entering into the manufacture of these articles. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 9, 1912. (T. D. 32759; G. A. 7384.)

ProtestTimeliness of filing.-Dropping protest in box at post office does not constitute service on collector, the protest not reaching the office of the collector within the statutory time. G. A. 6861 (T. D. 29514) followed. United States General Appraisers, New York, April 3, 1911. (T. D. 31449; G. A. 7196.)

Sufficiency of protest.-Use of “etc.” A protest under subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is intended to inform the collector of such error as the importer may claim exists in the classification of merchandise. In this case the importers object to the collector's assessment of duty "under the tarift act of August 5, 1909, at 60 per cent ad valorem on electroliers, vases, and articles of glass and metal, etc.” The words " et cetera” having no meaning in a document of this character, the protests were held to apply only to electroliers and vases and articles of glass and metal. United States General Appraisers, New York, April 18, 1911. (T. D. 31520; G. A. 7210.)

Protest, insufficiency of.—Lichtenstein & Co. v. United States (No. 12). John Zimmerman Co. v. United States (No. 13). Blanket protest, insufficiency of. A protest, blanket in form, covering various classes of articles, not included in the importation or importations in question, fails to state the importer's claim with such clearness and certainty as to acquaint the collector with the real grounds of the complaint and is insufficient. Protests are to be construed liberally and alternative claims are allowable, but the requirement of law that the importer shall set forth in the protest distinctly and specifically and in respect to each entry or payment the reason for his objection thereto may not be ignored. United States Court of Customs Appeals, November 30, 1910. (T. D. 31105.)

Rehearing.–United States v. Ewing & Clancey (No. 829). Sufficiency of protest. It is contended the protest makes no claim for reliquidation upon the basis as fixed by the court. Technical precision is not required in protests, but the objections to the assessment must be stated so distinctly and specifically that when fairly construed they will show the claims of the protestant and to notify the collector what these claims are. The protest here is lacking in these respects. United States Court of Customs Appeals, June 1, 1912. (T. D. 32625.)

Reliquidation.-(1) Collector of customs-Authority to reliquidate. The only action a collector of customs may take after the filing of a protest is to reliquidate the entry in accordance with the demands of the same, or to forward the protest to the Board of United States General Appraisers. (2) Collector's duty in forwarding protests. Under the law it is the duty of the collector to forward all protests to the board within a reasonable time, and, under the regulations of the Treasury Department, it is his duty to forward them within 30 days after they are filed. United States General Appraisers, New York, May 31, 1912. (T. D. 32581; G. A. 7370.)

New protest on reliquidation.-Smith & Co. v. United States (No. 148). Reliquidation on order of board followed by a new protest. Where an importer's protest against the inclusion of certain bottle charges in an assessed valuation had been sustained and a reliquidation by the collector ordered, the importer interposed a new protest with the collector, asserting his right to a new assessment on the contents themselves of the bottles and at a lower rate than that which had been originally fixed held in the proceedings that ensued on reliquidation the collector made no “decision” from which an appeal would lie;' he was acting ministerially, and the importer having failed within the time prescribed by law to protest against the original assessment as to the value of the contents of the bottles and to appeal therefrom, that assessment is res adjudicata. United States Court of Customs Appeals, April 17, 1911. (T. D. 31527.)

Insufficiency of protest.-A blanket” protest containing multifarious claims, many of which are not pertinent to the goods covered by the importation in question held not to comply with the requirements of subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, which requires that the importer shall set forth in his protest “distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry or payment, the reasons for his objections” to the collector's decision.—Lichtenstein & Co. v. United States (T. D. 31105). United States General Appraisers, New York, May 29, 1911. (T. D. 31648; G. A. 7226.)

SUBSECTION 15, SECTION 28.

Citation of importers to appear before collectors of customs.-United States v. Calhoun. United States v. Bornn Hat Co. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. January 9, 1911. (1) Appraisement--Citation to appear-Jurisdiction of collectors of customs. Subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing appraisers and collectors of customs to “cite to appear before them and examine upon oath any owner, importer, agent, consignee, or other person touching any matter or thing which

they may deem material respecting any imported merchandise, in ascertaining the dutiable value or classification thereof," does not empower collectors of customs to examine a person so cited as to the dutiable value of imported merchandise, they not being appraising officers. (2) Powers of collectors under the act of June 22, 1874–Reappraisement. The act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190),

#

[ocr errors]

which provides that after duties have been liquidated the " settlement of duties shall, after the expiration of one year from the time of entry, in the absence of fraud,

be final and conclusive upon all parties," was not repealed by the tariff act of 1909, is merely a statute of limitation, and gave no new powers to collectors of customs. A reliquidation under said act can not include a reappraisal, but must proceed on the basis of the old appraisal. (3) Finality of appraisement-Fraud. The provision in subsection 13 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that in cases where no objection is made thereto the decision of the appraiser “shall be final and conclusive against all parties" is conclusive on the collector of customs, even in cases where the appraisal was procured by fraud. (4) Reliquidation-Citation for undisclosed illegal purpose. Subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, does not confine customs officers to the citation of persons in relation to appraisals and original liquidations, but extends to reliquidations by collectors under the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190); and the undisclosed illegal purpose of a collector, proceeding under the latter act, to inquire into the dutiable value of merchandise, is no answer to a disobedience of his order, if that order be within the scope of his powers at the time. (5) Production of books-Corporations. In directing a person, under subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, to produce his books, it is not necessary that customs officers should show first that the contents of the books are material evidence; nor is it an answer that the person so directed is a corporation. (6) Scope of subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909. The scope of subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is not limited because the forfeiture penalty provided in subsection 16 for failure to comply with orders of customs officers made under said subsection 15 can not apply to examinations in aid of reliquidations. (T. D. 31730.)

SUBSECTION 18, SECTION 28.

Beams containing spun silk.--(1) Usual articles or forms covering or holding merchandise subject to specific duty. The usual articles or forms for covering or holding merchandise subject to specific duty are free, unless such articles or forms are given a different status by Congressional enactment. Karthaus v. Frick (14 Fed. Cas., 136); United States v. Leggett (66 Fed. Rep., 300); Curtis's case, G. A. 4947 (T. D. 23131). (2) Unusual-Use otherwise. To render articles or forms used for covering or holding imported merchandise dutiable under the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909, two conditions must coexist; they must be unusual, and must also be designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the merchandise. Pacific Creosoting Co.'s case, G. A. 6927 (T. D. 29980); Pollmann's case, G. A. 4649 (T. D. 21961). (3) Beams containing spun silk. Wooden beams containing spun silk are not unusual articles or forms for holding such silk within the meaning of subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909; they are entitled to free admission as usual articles or forms for holding merchandise subject to specific duty. Blumenthal's case, G. A. 2351 (T. D. 14559), overruled.

Somerville, G. A., dissenting, holds that the protests claiming that the wooden beams in question are the usual covering for the spun silk within the meaning of subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909, which is referable to containers or coverings of the kind there enumerated, and not sufficiently specific, and should be overruled. United States General Appraisers, New York, February 20, 1911. (T. D. 31332; G. A, 7175.)

Beams containing spun silk.—United States v. Stirn (No. 612). Wooden beams wound, with spun silk. To be admitted free as a container of merchan. dise on which a specific duty is imposed, an article should not only be a container, but should be the usual container employed in transporting the goods.The importer failed to overcome by a preponderance of evidence the presumption of the correctness of the collector's finding that the beams in question were unusual containers, if containers they were, and therefore that presumption must prevail. Further it is admitted that the beams were designed for some other use than the bona fide transportation of the merchandise to the United States. Under such circumstances additional duty would have been properly assessable on the beams even if they had been within the category of containers described by subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, March 20, 1912. (T. D. 32350.)

Bottles and jars containing ad valorem merchandise.-(1) Bottles and jars staining merchandise subject to ad valorem rates of duty, being specifically excepted from the provisions of paragraph 97, tariff act of 1909, by the phrase in parentheses “(except such as contain merchandise subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a rate of duty based in whole or in part upon the value thereof which shall be dutiable at the rate applicable to their contents)," are, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28, for "bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys,

whether holding liquids or solids," dutiable at the ad valorem rates applicable to their contents. (2) Congress having added as new matter in subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, the words “bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys,

whether holding liquids or solids," it is clear that it intended to modify the law as construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in the case of United States v. Hensel (106 Fed. Rep., 70), wherein it was held that such bottles were not dutiable as containers at the ad valorem rate applicable to their contents. United States General Appraisers, New York, November 2, 1911. (T. D. 31986; G. A. 7294.)

Bottles, jars, demijohns, and carboys containing ad valorem merchandise.Bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys, and other containers, when filled with merchandise subject to ad valorem rates, are dutiable at the ad valorem rate applicable to the contents thereof, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28, and not at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97 of the tariff act of 1909. United States v. Conkey et al. (T. D. 32564) followed. United States General Appraisers, New York, June 17, 1912. (T. D. 32644; G. A. 7377.)

Straro coversEmpty bottles.-Straw covers containing empty bottles, dutiable as unusual coverings, under tariff act of 1909. March 24, 1910. (T. D. 30463.)

No. 29691. Blanco boses-Usual coverings.-Protests 587309, etc., of C. M. Moseman & Bro. et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Zinc boxes used as containers for “Blanco," assessed under paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as usual containers under subsection 18 of section 28. United States v. Garramone (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 30; T. D. 31577) followed. (T. D. 32812.)

Circular zinc bores—Blanco.”—Circular zinc boxes used as the containers of “ Blanco" not dutiable under paragraph 151, but as usual containers under subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. Treasury Department, November 27, 1911. (T. D. 32042.)

Lacquered tin boxes containing paints.—Illfelder & Co. et. al. v. United States (No. 640). Lacquered metal boxes, with compartments and hinged lids, containing paints. Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, makes provision, it is true, for a duty on containers, but paragraph 195 of that act carries a specific provision for certain sorts of containers, and the merchandise here falls directly within that specific provision; lacquered metal boxes, with compartments and hinged lids, containing paints, though the lids be used as palettes, are dutiable under that paragraph (195). United States Court of Customs Appeals, November 22, 1911. (T. D. 32040.)

· Commissions.—United States v. Bauer et al. (Nos. 814–851). (1) Protest, sufliciency of. A commissionaire's service is rendered in connection with, on account of, and in consequence of the purchase of goods, is really a part of the transaction of the purchase and shipment of the goods, and the protest here fairly apprised the collector that commissions paid the commissionaire for the purchase of the goods abroad were claimed to be nondutiable. (2) Commissions paid for the purchase of goods abroad. Leaving aside technical questions and treating the dutiability of commissions on its merits, regarding the substance rather than the form, it is clear it was not the intention of Congress to impose a duty upon commissions paid in connection with the purchase of goods abroad. When a payment is a commission proper must depend on the facts in the particular case. United States Court of Customs Appeals, June 1, 1912. (T. D. 32627.)

Containers or coverings.-Ascher Co. et al. v. United States (No. 824). Duty on usual containers or coverings. The duty on goods of the character here involved is required by subsection 18, section 28, tariff act of 1909, to be assessed on the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the time of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country whence they were exported; and " value," as employed in paragraph 448 of that act, must be taken to be the same with the actual market value described in said

subsection 18. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 31, 1912. (T. D. 32622.)

Containers.—United States v. Conkey & Co. et al. (No. 816). Bottles and jars containing ad valorem merchandise. Paragraph 97 and subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, are in pari materia and are to be construed together. The parenthetical clause of paragraph 97 operates to except the bottles there de scribed, leaving these for assessment at the same rate with their contents under the provisions and in the mode pointed out by subsection 18. So to construe the named provisions gives what appears to have been the intended effect of the language employed and avoids, too, a double assessment.—United States v. Hensel (106 Fed. Rep., 70) distinguished. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 17, 1912. (T. D. 32564.)

Coverings.—Boxes containing merchandise subject to an ad valorem rate of duty. Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is applicable to coverings of merchandise dutiable at an ad valorem rate, and its operation is not suspended by paragraph 411, 418, or 420. United States General Appraisers, New York, May 31, 1910. (T. D. 30663; G. A. 7029.)

Coverings of ad valorem goods.-Spielman v. United States (No. 267). (1) Papier-mâché boxes. Separate provision is made by paragraph 418, tariff act of 1909, for boxes made wholly or in chief value of paper or papier-mâché, if covered with surface-coated paper; but such an eo nomine designation can not be taken to exclude the article so designated from an applicable part of the customs law enacted to simplify administration and to minimize frauds on the revenue. (2) Same—Containing nettings. The provisions of existing law relative to containers impose a duty, for example, on boxes, as boxes alone, when these are imported as merchandise. When they are brought in as usual containers of ad valorem goods they are subject to the specific administrative provision applicable to them when used in that way; and boxes covered with surface-coated paper and composed wholly or in chief value of paper or papiermâché, containing nettings, are dutiable under paragraph 18, section 28, tariff act of 1909, as usual containers. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 22, 1911. (T. D. 31626.)

Cotton clothValue.-(1) “Valued.” The word “valued” in paragraph 317, tariff act of 1909, has no definite meaning without reference to the administrative act (sec. 28, tariff act of 1909). Its meaning is found in said administrative act. (2) ValuePacking cases-Cotton cloth. In ascertaining the value of cotton cloth for the purpose of determining the subdivision of paragraph 317, tariff act of 1909, under which such cloth is properly classifiable, the proportionate value of the packing cases should be added to the per se value of the cloth by reason of the mandatory provision in subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that “whenever imported merchandise is subject to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof, the duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value

thereof, including the value of all

cases." (3) Different rates of duty on same merchandise. The fact that the same cloth might pay different rates of duty, dependent on whether or not it is imported in American-made cases, is immaterial where there is express statutory authority for the collection of different rates under different circumstances. United States General Appraisers, New York, April 29, 1911. (T. D. 31542; G. A. 7216.)

Cylindrical iron drums.—United States v. Braun Chemical Co. (No. 561.) Cylindrical iron drums containing chemical salts. Where the containers are cylindrical iron drums that it is necessary to cut into two parts in order to remove their contents, and when so cut in two appear to have no value and do not enter into or become a part of the merchandise of this country for any purpose whatever, they are not dutiable under paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, as cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels for containing purposes and separately from their contents, but rather as usual containers possessing no value apart from their contents, and their value should be assessed along with the contained merchandise at ad valorem rates under paragraph 3, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 18, section 28, tariff act of 1909.-United States v. Marx & Rawolle (T. D. 31210) distinguished. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 10, 1911. (T. D. 31596.)

Keene's cement-Subsection 18, section 28, act of 1909How appraised. (1) Keene's cement dutiable under paragraph 88, act 1909. Under paragraph 88, tariff act of 1909, Keene's cement valued above $10 and not above $15 per

*

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »