Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

TO THIRD DIVISION

Schedule 2.-Earths, earthenware, and glassware. Paragraphs 201, 207, and 209 to 216, inclusive.

Schedule 5.-Sugar, molasses, and manufactures of.

Schedule 7.-Agricultural products and provisions, except paragraphs 717 to 721, inclusive.

Schedule 8.-Spirits, wines, and other beverages.

Schedule 14.—Sundries, paragraphs 1408, 1409 to 1411, 1416, 1418, 1422 to 1424, 1449, 1450, 1454, 1457, and 1458, and administration questions, except as otherwise provided. Claims for damages, deterioration or injury to goods, and protests involving clerical errors.

The effect of the foregoing arrangements will be substantially as follows:

To First Division: Acids, chemicals, coal-tar drugs, medicinal preparations, oils, paints, soap, toilet articles, glass, marble, stone, earths, wood, wool, fur, leather, jewelry, toys, beads, feathers, musical instruments, fish, india rubber, bone and horn, chip and straw, ivory, precious stones, and imitation precious stones, tobacco, drawback.

To Second Division: Metals, cotton, flax, jute, hemp, silk, nettings, laces, braids, embroideries, linoleums, trimmings, books, and papers. To Third Division: Administration, except as herein before provided, agriculture, fruit, provisions, plants, live animals, spirits, sugar, sundries, personal effects, paintings, earthenware, antiques, works of art, scientific apparatus, mineral substances, and smokers' articles.

50. REPEAL

All rules of practice and procedure heretofore adopted and promulgated by the court are hereby repealed, and the foregoing rules are hereby adopted in lieu thereof.

[blocks in formation]

Appeal directed from the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 41828), involving the classification of certain glass tubing

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 14, 1927. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 23d ultimo, in which you invite attention to the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 41828), holding that glass tubing which was assessed with duty at the rate of 65 per cent ad valorem under para

graph 218 of the tariff act of 1922 is properly dutiable at the rate of 55 per cent ad valorem under the fourth clause of the same paragraph.

You state that the glass tubing in question is imported in lengths ranging from 42 to 60 inches, and that in your opinion the record shows that such tubing is used for experimental, chemical, and pharmaceutical purposes. The department accordingly approves your action in filing with the United States Court of Customs Appeals a petition for the review of this decision in conformity with the provisions of section 198 of "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," approved March 3, 1911:

Respectfully,
(110924.)

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York.

(T. D. 41943)

Rugs Dumping duties

L. C. ANDREWS,
Assistant Secretary.

Appeal approved from decision on protests 91685-G, etc., involving assessment of dumping duties on rugs imported from Canada

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 14, 1927.

SIR: The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 31st ultimo advising that a petition has been filed for a review of the decision of the United States Customs Court in the case of protest 91685-G, etc., of American Rug & Carpet Co. et al., involving the assessment of dumping duties on certain rugs imported from Canada.

The department hereby approves your action in filing an application with the United States Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the said decision in conformity with section 198 of "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," approved March 3, 1911.

[blocks in formation]

Foreign currencies-Rates of exchange

Rates of exchange certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c), tariff act of 1922

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 15, 1927.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

The appended table of the values of certain foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve

United States Customs Court

Second Division

Protest 131503-G against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York

[Affirmed.]

(Decided January 10, 1927)

Davis & Bevans (James W. Bevans of counsel) for the plaintiff.

Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (John A. Kemp and William H. Futrell, special attorneys), for the United States.

Before FISCHER and WELLER, Justices

FISCHER, Justice: Certain metal articles, invoiced as "wide cutters" and used exclusively as blades or cutters in power-driven sheep-shearing machines, were assessed with duty under the following provision in paragraph 357 of the act of 1922:

Nail, barbers', and animal clippers, pruning and sheep shears, and all scissors and other shears, and blades for the same, finished or unfinished, * * * valued at more than 50 cents and not more than $1.75 per dozen, 15 cents each, and 45 per centum ad valorem;

*

It is claimed that said blades are properly dutiable under the last provision in the following paragraph of said act:

PAR. 356. Planing-machine knives, tannery and leather knives, tobacco knives, paper and pulp mill knives, roll bars, bed plates, and all other stocktreating parts for pulp and paper machinery, shear blades, circular cloth cutters, circular cork cutters, circular cigarette cutters, meat-slicing cutters, and all other cutting knives and blades used in power or hand machines, 20 per centum ad valorem.

The facts are undisputed. The uncontradicted te stimony of Charles Ashton Lister shows that he is a manufacturer of sheepshearing machinery at Dursley, Gloucester, England; that his company made the knives or blades in question; that the latter are used solely in power-driven sheep-shearing machines; that electric or belt power is transmitted to the blades through a flexible shaft similar to that represented herein as illustrative Exhibit "A;" that these blades function over a stationary comb and perform their cutting operation in precisely the same manner as do the ordinary shears, scissors, clippers, etc., which are operated by hand pressure. The witness also stated that

Before the invention and introduction of this class of machine all sheep were shorn by means of hand shears or clippers; that is, two blades were held scissorwise, or two blades with a spring handle, and the power of the hand just brought the two blades together to just clip off the wool.

*

*

In their brief filed herein, counsel for plaintiff concede thatThe sheep shears covered by Par. 357 are shears such as described by the witness, that is, they comprise two blades having a spring handle, the shear being in one piece of a substantial U-shape, and the legs of the "U" being formed into the cutting blades and the connecting portion of the "U" constituting not only the handle but also the spring for the blades.

But they not only contend that the term "sheep shears," as used in the paragraph, is strictly limited to the hand-operated shears just described, but they likewise insist that all of the other classes of articles mentioned in the paragraph are similarly restricted to handoperated devices. They allege that all of the enumerated articles "are obviously and admittedly hand devices."

With the latter statement we are unable to agree, since it is a matter of common knowledge, of which this court is certainly entitled to take judicial notice, that there are barbers' clippers which are electrically operated, while the instant merchandise is evidence of the fact that there are also animal clippers which are driven by other than hand power. We would, therefore, be no more justified in excluding from the paragraph electrically operated barbers' clippers, than we would be warranted in construing the provision for "animal clippers" as contemplating only those which are operated by hand. If Congress intended to limit the scope of the paragraph to hand-operated devices, it is fair to assume that that purpose would have been made manifest by appropriate language. At least, such procedure was adopted in limiting the provision in paragraph 372 for "machine tools" to machines "operating other than by hand power" and employing tools for work upon metal.

Moreover, the provisions for "sheep shears" and "animal clippers" constitute new legislation. It must be presumed that, in enacting it, the lawmakers were cognizant of our ruling in G. A. 7877 (T. D. 36252), wherein we held sheep shears to be properly classifiable for tariff purposes as agricultural implements. That case arose under the act of 1913, and in the course of our opinion we discussed the testimony of one of the witnesses as follows:

He testified that his firm has been importing and dealing in sheep shears of the kind here in question for the past 30 years, as also in sheep-shearing machines of the particular kind on the invoice covered by protest 758201 and which were returned free of duty as agricultural implements; that the hand shears and the machine shears perform precisely the same kind of work in shearing sheep; that in the former the long sharp-pointed blades are specially adapted for penetrating into the thick wool of the sheep and are provided with a spring, which enables them to open fully of themselves, thus facilitating the process of sheep shearing; that he never knew these shears to be employed for any other purpose. Inasmuch as our classification of the articles as agricultural implements rather than as "shears" was affirmed in United States v. Irwin (7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 360; T. D. 36906) and again in United States v. Wiebusch (7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 364; T. D. 36907), and since a similar conclusion was reached in United States v. Ducommun (7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 353; T. D. 36904) regarding certain pruning shears which were shown to have been very largely if not exclusively employed in pruning operations in vineyards and orchards, Congress evidently knew that it was settled law, at least under the act of 1913, 38160-271-VOL 51—— 4

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »