a dilty of, 5O"per 1tMtM. <"'SUkveils, Rrespecil1caUyenumerated :Rs:being liaNe ito·'\ duty of 60 per cent."and ,Ithe articles' in question; . .Qf which til} 1'8' silk. are wi,tbin .the enUtDlirattng danseof tbe:statute. If this were &l.l,ithe al'g'ulllelllt'wouid be Rstl'Ong:Que.. But the. fact that the veils in \lni versaUy'known and recognized among merchants and import. ers as ·crepe veilR.' an'd ·not otherwise, and are never caJledoli known as ·silk veil.s,' is to be taken into acconnt.. Although crepe is shown to be a material of"snk :tl1:which a ool'tain resinous substance has been applied, neither the merahald, Illor the ordinary buyer undel'stands them to be, identical. Neither who should order acasl} of crepes and receiveolle of silk PI' order and receive c,repe. lIor the indi vidual purl'!Jaser who a dress of: Hnd receive one of crepe, or should order and woulddeern that the order had been properly filled. understandiug concurs in this reRpect with that of the tra:lerand the construction to be given to the Iangul1g8oftbe It me thartheerror of the hoard of generalapprllisers lies in their OOi1b}u'sion tbat, be(iause thegoorls in question are made after the matinel of' laces, anrlhave the substantial characteristics of laces, there· fore t'f)pyfarecomrllerci'ally laces, whiie I,think the of proof clearly shows"thatthey are not', as "laces," but as "nets" and lttiu' "drapery nets.". It is due to the board of general apprai'safs to slIY that the additional proof taken under 'the order of this court sibcethEl appelllis lnuch more full and convincing as to the commerclaldesigtlation of these goods than that made by the proof before the commhlsion. FCH'these reasansthe decision of'the board of general appraisers'i,8'reversed,'ftnif:the 'of thl' port of Chicago is ordered to reliquidat'e the Elutdesaecording to this decision. I
,In re ,
BIGGINS
.
et al.
D. Ne1D .Yor1c. January 12, 1899.)
TariffActOtlt. 1. l'l:lIlO; construction of paragraphs 883,885,886. 9. 'SAME. ' ' ·'Tbe,"sQrtinjJ of.paragrapb K, Tariff Act Oct. '':! ..;1, p. to 8. cAME. The term "sorting" In paragraTlh 888 meanl a changing of the original lI.eeool, alJd not a seJlarJl,tion of Be to color. J. ',': ",',' , ',_ "/:'; :""",';
L
CUSTOMS
DpTIES-Du1T 9.l'WOOL-SORTING. '
.. thedut1on w()()l wblch bas ..een lortecl.hall be twice the etlny t/pWhlch iit 'Nould'be,otherwise sUlljeet",meanl "twice tbe'duty to which it s\lbjllotif .it " iO
'lkSA.M,L i ',,'; !
"r",! ".' ::,
': ,
jti,\lill:em
to .b.e tb\rd, cl!,S8, Wbich are subject to tlle 'yalu6,of tbe woOl in ,all unsorted condItion shOUld be aslirltf'multipHed '1:11 twice therli1leprovlded by law, for wool oflluch value. Ulup, ·. SoU9wed. " , :
'J':,;
I,
Ii':
,,'
,
"
!
.'".
. IN RE HIGGINS. B.S4Q.' , " ','.,' . ",'
. prp.viso in wools on which .. duty ,Is assess,ed to three.tllnes or more tb:atwhlCh would be assellsedif said wool was Iml:0rt-,. I lila unwashed. such duty sball'not be doubled on l\ClCOiint'tlrtts being sorted, applies'to wools of all Clasllesj·l .j
'1. SAMB·
. Where sorted wooLof olass8 is worth over 18 cents per. ,pound, and the du1;y' thereO!1 at 50 per cent. ad vlIlorem. under paragraph 3ll6, a,mounts to more thau three times the duty which could have been assessed uponlt.if hhad, been imported washed. double duty cannoli beasllessed upon it, under' the sorting clauss'ot .para. . grop h 383. (Syll.abuB by: the C01Lrt.)
M Law. Appeal bYlJollector from decision of board of United States general appraisers. Affirmed. In April, lR91, Messrs. Hlggins & Co., carpet manufacturers, in the city of New York, imported from Liverpool a quantity of carpet (third. class)' wool. Some of these wools were gray; some yellow, and some white. The invoice price of and yelloW' wools amounted to less, than.13 cents per poutld,and of the white wool to more than 13 cents per pound. On the entry of the merchandise they paid, as as. timated.i 32 per cent. ad valarem on the gray and yellow wools, under paragraph 385, Schedule K. Act Oct. 1, 1890, and on the white wool 50 percent. adivalorem, under paragraph 386 of the same act and schedrile·. ,-he United Statf'S local appraiser ,returned all these wools as ".sorted w;oQls," and thereupoll the collector, acting under special instruc. tions· of .the/lecretary of the treasury, (Synopsis Tre8$. Dec. § 11,307,) liquidated the duties at 64 per cent. upon the invoice value of the gray and yellow wools, 385, 383) and 100 per cent. upon the in· voice value of the white wool, (paragraphs 386, 383.) Demand was made upon lIiggins & Co. for upwards of $7 ,000 n<lqitional duties, which they paid under protest. The. substantial averments of the protest were as follows: First ... We protest against the exaction upon tQe gray and yellow wool con· tained insaiq importations of more than a2 per cent·. a¢ valo1'em, and upon the. white wool contained in said importations of t)Jan 50 per cent. ad valorem, on the ground that bt'ing wools of the third class, and valued, the gray and 'yellow at less, and the white at more, than 13 cents per pOllnd,·they are s'ubject only to such rates, and no more, by virtue of paragraphs 385,386, Schedule K. Act Oct. 1, Ui90. Second. We further claiiu that none of our· wools been imported in oth\'r than. ordinary condition, or changed in. cbaract.,.r or condition. for the purpose of evading tlle duty. or reducl!d in value by the admixture of dirt or any other foreign substallce. . 1.'h'ird. We protl'st against the application to oUr wool of the clause In 8chedltle K, of said act, which provides that "the duty upon wool of the sheep' * ' which:has been sorted, or increased in value by the rejection of any part of the original fleece, shall be twice the duty to which it would be. otherwise subject," etc., on the ground that saidprovisiou applies only to WOols of classlls 1 and 2. which are subject to specific dutil'S. Fou1'th .. We claim that the intent of the lawmakerslri enacting the "sorting" clause above qilOted is fully satisfied in the case of third-cl\lss woqls, by the grading of the duties under the ad valorem system, as the increase'of the rate from 82perhent. to 50: percent., and the incrr'aseof the values :apon which 'the rate .is assessed. makes.the.woljls, after the: colors have. been lIeparated, pay double thedutl
912'
FEDERAl. 'REPORTER "vol.
50.
wh,Ich theY-,would have paid if, not separated. Fifth. We claim that none of are the meaning of .nddelliers. We claim that the term "sorting... as used in commercial parlance and in the tariff, means a separation of parts of the fleece with reference to their quality and value, while in the case of 01lI' ,Wools there has been simplysseparation as to color, the white wools havthegraY!lndyellpw wools; and. if thE! separation of to colpr to be sorting, the result of that processln tbe case of our gray and yellow wools has been to decrease, and not increase. tbeir value. Sixth. If the sorting clause of paragraph 383. above quoted, can be applied to third-class wools, then we claim that our wools are frolll sa,id, claus? by the terms of said because the yelrow WOOl'ls'sklfted wool as Imported, and CQmmeron and prior to I, 1890, and the white woo! has already had assel/sed, 'tl'pon It a 'duty amounting to three times that Which would be ass.essed,1if!!8id wool was ImpoFted',unwasbed., If the above-quoted sQould ,blil held applicable to our wools, tb,atthe, eX8.ct)Oppf 64",pef ,cent. or 100 per cent. uvon the inla it is the duty of t() what would . the of our wools l.f the, whIte .wool Mdnob \We!t separated from .the grny imdyeJlow wools, ,WhICh value, we assert, Wot'tld illeyery much' less than 13 cents per pound ; and thaV,·lf' the sort;.. ingclallsii: ean beapplled,t01o,ur'wQols,.it'is then yourdutytoassess 64 per so by the aPlmdser, which du,wouldi)e le!l!l than, the d.uties at 32 per cellt·.and ,{lO per cent. already paid' by .us: . .)V w here goods are s,!fbject to' a graded ad duty, and the . ptbcess of .separating them bas so Increased the value of auyofthem as'to .adV'ance them from one grade to another, no provision oflaow'fordo(lbUng'th&duty,to which they would'be'otherwise subject call y,ouindoubl'itig the,:rate of duty applicable to the higher p;rade, andass68sing jt upontbe va.1uatiQn as increased by the process of separation. i
The protest was transnH'ttedto the Uniteq. f3tates board of generalappraisers, pUfrsoant to section 14 Of theaetof June 10, 1890, (Customs Administrative Act; 26 U. S. St. p. 131,) and a hearing was had befor& It was proventh'll.tiit had been for many years the custom in the. woohriarkets qf Liverpool to separate East India wools of this char,t<?thi:1it' and that wools were' wools had not been changed m theIr for the purpose of evading the duty, nor had they beenireduced'in:value by the admixture of dirt or any other foreign substitMe;that;as,to the gray and yellow wools, there had been no sepiuati011 excelWas 'to color; that white wool hud been separated both as to colpr,an:?<t*a1ity; that effect of separating gray and yellow wools frQlll:white, WQ,o.lswas to reduce their'value; that the white wool, as imninepence per pound, whereas, if it had not been sorted, its value would have been sixpence per pound, and, if it were unwashed; its value would be twopence per pound; and that all of said wools were ilitended tQ be used, and had in fact been used, to make car,,' . , ......,. ., ' , ·i . of. 0) That separat\ng wools as to color; was not," sprting;'? within, the meaning of the Jaw. (2) That the. sort· i{lg clauae applied to aU of wool. (3) That the' gray and yellow:
IN RE HIGGINS.
P13
wools were not and the white wool was sorted, within the meaning of the law. (4) That the white wool had already paid (at 50 per cent. on its invoice value) the duty to which it would. . been subject if imported unsorted, and three times the duty to which it would have been subject if imported unwashed. ' (5) That the decision of the col· lector shoulq,be reversed, and the entry From this dbcisionthe collector, under, section 15 of the customs administrative act, appealed to the circuit court. Edward MitcheU, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty.; '[de appellaht. ' Curie, Smith &- Mackie, (W. Wickham Smith, of counsel,) forrespondents. WHEELER.', District Judge. The question here arises upon that part of clause 383 of Schedule K of the tariff act of 18,90 which providt's that the duty upon the wool (( which has been sorted, or increased in value by the of any part of the original fleece, shall be twice duty to Which it would be otherwise subject: provided, that skirted wools, as hiiported, are'hereby excepted. Wools on which a duty is assessed amounting to threetimes or more than thatwhich would be ifsaid wool was imported unwashed, such duty shall not be dbubled orr account of its being sorted." The importation was of white, yellow, wools, which hitdpeen separated by colors, and the value of increased and Of the yellow an(l gray lessened. The collector, under some direction, considered the whole to have been sorted, and doubled the duty on its value as sorted. The general appraisers reversed this, and decided that the duty .on the white wool should not be doubled, because the single duty amounted to more than three times as muchas if it pad been imported unwashed; and that the yellow and gl,1lyhad riot'heen sorted, within the meaning of the law. The duty to which the sorted wool would be otherwise subject would seem clearly to be that to"which it would have been subject if unsorted, and not that which would be the duty when sorted. The other construction would make this clillise mean that, under these circumstances, the duty should be double what it would be undoubled. If this separation into colors was sorting, it would be a sorting of the whole, as it all was brought; and the duty on the whole, unsorted,would have to be doubled, unless it amounted to more than three times what the duty on the whole, unwashed, would have been. But sorting seems to refer to changing the original fleece. This brings in the proviso that it shall not apply to skirted 'wools. The fleeces of the yellow and gray wools do not appear to have been'sorted in the fleece, and are found not to have been sorted at all. . As the duty on the white wool was more than three times what it been if the wool had been imported unwashed, that was not to be dbgbled, and as the yellow ahd gray had not been sorted, that was not to be,. and none was to be, doubled. The decision of the board of is therefore V.50F.no.11-58,
011
DDEBAL :BE1'OBTIlB ,';vol
At Law.
Petition for review or' · decisIon by ",i. j .', " . ,.' ., . '
of general
The Boston Book Company ordered from London a secondhand of Howell's State Trials, 34 volumE's, which were published in successt1l,e. YeIlrs 1828. On arrival of the set (per Scythi"" ,April 13, 189l) the appraiser at the Port of nosb;lD:f9QQd,J.hllt, ,whilEt ,printed more than 20 years ago, it had eviregound, assessed upon it ...,dutyof:25 percent. 'llPon the value, (£16.10,) the the presenttarift', requil'e!\a .book .to have been "prmWQ,' anstwund " more th",n 20 to be admitted free. This duty, Boston protest on April SAme an to the board of llg&:insttlle inipqsition of this duty. On the board of appraisers susof of the port of Boston,. anellO notified the , ' ., . " .A for Petitioner. folcOllector. ,The treasury department t,,"08 ruled-the ,188.6-that 'lnder .the tarif:I:"act of 18.83 books printed,. 20: years, but, imported in sheets. were not entitled .'I:he however, advised otherwise (180p. Attys. !,He reached this conq!UBioDiQy making" hqu;,nd: or word my tllat change in phraseology which appears l\ctLP(,qctobe;r, s() far as present ,beconstn,ae4 retp.qve tQ.18 doubt, and to .polley, concerning. thiit was not .t1;l:e.opjnion of the ,attorney gelll/raI permitted. This WaS,. to be by stril,dng out the comma after ,".,1;lnbou.,.n<;lr .,. .. . st.r;W ,.Qutmigh.t be"worth, SP as, pe.f.... .. Jl,",Pil, whatJo.JJo",ed ,I»ld and bYlnsert;irlg or" woJilM..,"priqte9: · ist4erefore to be w9Fds, "referring to should be bound to 8,-t:l, . and "prlDted» and "manufactured" to I .discover no :
Judge.
!t,