826

FEDERAL BEPOBTEB,vol49.

.

"mn SCHEFEBdal· 'OQUft. 8. D. ;New ,:March .0,1899.)

EMBBOIl)ERJU)· .Wolilted8hawia, emoroldered with·' Bilk, are dutiable a8 worsted shawls under -.·Schedulll K, Pl"'. actot October 1, 1890; and not as. embroideries made of _ in paragraph 878, Schedule J, and paragraph I all$, BobedUleK, of said tarift aet. .. ·. . .
'.! i) '<

.!

Applicatienby tbe importers under the provisions of section 1.6 ·dBbe Mtof cotlgress,entitled "An act to simplify the Inwe in to· the collection o.t tbe revenues, II approved June 10, 1890, for a. review 'by ,the !United States circuit court· of :the decision ofthe board of United Statesgehetalapl>lll.isersat the port of New York, affirming the demsititl ofithe-collector'oD the classification for duty of certain merchan-; dise lmportedinto said port in the· month of 18910 The mer" .in/question donsisted of so.cnlled shawls, being manufactures of 'Worsted embroidered with silk. They·were returned by the United States appraiser as "·worsted shawls, embroidered, 60/60;" and duty was the collector at the·rate of 60 :Cents per pound, and 60 per centum ad valmem under the provisions of paragraph 398 of Schedule :K,andtheproviso contained inpallagraph 373, Schedule J, of the tariff act of ObtOber 1, 1890. Said· paragraph 398, omitting the pro. visions immaterial td this case, as follows: and embroideries ... ... ... wrought by hand "On webbings, ... ... ... · made of wool, worsted, the hair afthe or braided by'tn.ohinery, camel, goat, alpaca, or other animals, '" '" '" the duty shall be sixty cents per pound" ,.nd in aqditlon sixty per centum act val01·em.." The pr(jV'isobi paragraph 373 is as follows: . "Protided tbat articles of wearing apparel, and textile fabrics, when em. broidered by blind'or macbinery,·and whether specially or otherwise provided for in this aet,ahall not .paya les8 rate of duty tbanthat fixed by the respeot· ive paragraphs·and upon Of tbe materials fJr. Wl,1ich they.a.re resPllctlvelycl>mp08ed." . Against this classification the importers. protested, claiming (1) that the goods wete specifically' provided forin Schedule K, paragraph 392, of the act of October 1, 1890, and, being worth over 40 cents per pound, were dutiable at 44 cents per pound, and 50 per centum ad valoremj or (2) that the sha:wlswere dutiable as wearing apparel 'umierparagraph 396 of Schedule Kaf said tariffactj or (3) that the goods were not at and prior to October 1, 1890, commercially known as "embroideries." Said paragraph 392 1 asfarasapplicable,provides as follows: ·. valued at above forty "On woolen or: worsted cloths. shawls,. . cents pet·pound. the,dlltyper. pOllnd.ahall be fourtlJ:II.es thlil duty imposed by ,thJaaot,on unwRshed w.ool of the class, an<!.lp addition thereto, fifty per centum: 'Oalorem. '; . .. . . '. The board of United States general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector, and the importers thereupon procured the return of the

8fii
said board of general appraisers to ,be filed in the U Statps ci rcuit of Juoe 10, court pursuant to the provisions of came on to be 1890; and, there being no issue of fact involv,ed, tried in" the circuitcpurt upon the return of the said: board ofgeneral aP'7 praisers. . ., ...... . On behalf of the government it was urged by the United States attorney that the pronoun" they;n occurring in the last clause of the proviso in paragraph 373, namely, "upon embroideries of the materials of which they are respectively compoliled," referl'8.d. to the substantives which were the subjects of the namely, "articles of wearing apparel and texarticle or fabric tile fabrics; "and that :the intent of congress was composed of wool or worsted, even if embroidered with other materials, should be admitted ata less rate of duty than that provided for eni" broideries made of wool or worsted in paragraph 398 of the tariff act under consideration; and that these goods, being embroidered shawls, which were articles of wearing apparel composed of worsted, should pay the duty 8S if they were embroideries made of wO'rsted. The counsel for the importers contended that the pronoun" they" in the last clause of the proviso in paragraph 373 referred to the 110un "embroideries," which more immediately preceded it; and urged that the shawls in question should not be entered at a less rate of duty than that affixed upon embroideries of silk under paragraph 413, namely, 60 per centum ad valorem, which in this case was much less than the amount contended for in the importers' protest, and which they were willing to pay, namely, 44 cents per pound, and 50 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 392. Curie, Smith & Mackie, for importers. . 'Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Jamea T. Van RenMelaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.
LACOllBE, Circuit Judge. It seems to me to be plain that what cOngress meant to provide by this clause W8S this: that you shall not get in any of your woolen articles at any less rate than that which is specifically fixed for them, by putting some ornamentation upon them, and saying that that makes them specifically a different article, which should come in at a less rate; that you shall not do that with any other kind of goods which you may embroider; and, if the embroidery which you put on an article is of a material which pays a higher rate of duty when ernbroidered than the article which you put it on, you shall pay on that article when you bring it in just the same rate of duty that you would if bringing in the embroidery without using any vehicle to get it into this country. I think that was the intent of congress. And this being a filhawl, and being provided for as a "woolen shawl," and having a particular duty imposed upon it in the wool schedttle, at such a rate as congress supposed was sufficient to protect the industry of manufacturingw:oolen shawls, Idb Dot see why the entire intent of congress is not accomplished by the provision that it shall not escape the operation of that schedule by coming in at a less rate if a cheaper embroidery is put upon it. In order to avoid that. they provide specifically that

FEDERAL .RlIlPO!tTft, \tl>1.

49.

itshilll bot, under any ciroumstanoos, pay a less rate than the duty im... posed upon: the embroidery that is put on it. I cannot see that the proltisotnMDs what the board of appraisers seem to think it was meant toaecolriplish; it seems to me it means just·asplainlythe opposite. The decision is reversed.

..m f'e MEaROZ "

Dtm.. CUSTOMS GliNlIBA.J, A,l'P.RA.1SBB-RBA.PPRA.TSIIIIIIIN'I'. ..
..

oZ.

March 0, 1891.)

JUNlI10,

.

(Ofrcu-U "COUrt. 8. D. New Yor1c.

Am

1890-UmTBD

BTA.TlII

A United States' general appraiser, when reappraising the value of imported me ..teha.nd,ise,p. to the requirements of Jection 18 of the administrative cUl. 100m. a2t ,June 10, 1890, (chapter 4,07, 26 U.S. St. p. 181,) is I).ot constrained at all by 'the ·rules that pertain to courts, butmayreappraille suoh merchandise at a higher "Mue than that fu!:ed.by thelooal appraiser, .even though such reappraise.. ment behRd at the instance of the importer thereof, and not at that of a collector Of customs.

At Law· Appeal by importers from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers. During the month of August, 1890, the firm of Megroz, Portier, Magny'&Co.,;jmported from a foreign country into the United States at the port otNew York certain merchandise. This merchanq.ise was appraised by the local appraiser at a value greater thim the entered value thereof. Pursuant to tlie provision of section 13 of the administrative customs .tot of June 10" 1890, (chapter, 407, 26 U. S·. St. p. 131,) the importers, within the time prescribed thereby, gave notice of their satisfaction with the appraisement made by the local appraiser to the collector of customs. wlioat·once. directed a rea,ppraiaement of this IJ!erchandiseby one of the general appraisers, who appraised this merchandiseat a value above that fi:xed by the. local appraiser. ThereaftElr, pursuant to the. provisions of saidseotion 13, theitnporters, within the time presoribed-thereby, gave notic8of their diss!\tisfaction with the a1>'" praisement,.made by the one general appraiser .to thE1 collector of toms, who tnlosmitted the invoice of this merchandise, and all papers appertaining thereto, 00' a board of three general appraisers, who, after that :the value of this merchandise, as apprai8"ld by the one general appraiser, was the dutiable value thereof. Upon value oftbis w.ercbandiseso to be the dutiable value the collector of customs. assessed duty at therll(te prescribed for such merchandise by thetariflMt in force at the time of its importation. Against theassessroent of duties on the value of. thismercpandise, decided as -aforesaid to 'Pe the dutiable value thereof,the importers protested, claiming, ,in substance, that.the reappraisement and void, on onEl.general.appraiaer had no authority onraraise values .fixed.by tbe,local appraiser, .the appeal appraisement made. by the·latter not having heeD

i RE . QUAINTANCll:.

829

the collector, but by the importers. Upon receipt of this by section 14 of tpe aforesaid administrative customs act, the, Collector submitted the case thus presented to a second board of general appraisers at :this port, who overruled the importer's protest, and affirmed ,the decision of the collector as to the aforesaid assessment of duties. Within the time prescribed by section 15 of .the customs . act the importers applied to the United states court for this district for a review of this last-mentioned decision. . . ' , W. , .wickham Smith, ,of Ourie, Smith & Mackie, for importers. EdWflrd, Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collectQr.
LACOMBE, Circuit Jndge, (uraUy.) An. appraiser, whenever called npon to act, is not constra,ined at all by the rules that pertain to courts, but goes to work to satisfy. his own mind, in the best way he can, what goods are worth i and he can do that notwithstanding he reaches the conclusion that the goods are worth more than ,the value fixed by the local appraiJrer. The decision of the board of United States general appraisers is therefore affirmed.

In re

(CircUit

QUAINTANCE.

Court, 8. D. Ne:w York. March 9, 1m)

AND. CoTTON. SHIRTING&. .

Silk and cotton shirtings, invoiced as "mixed shirtings," consisting of cotton warp threads, some white and some colored, and silk weft threads, the cotton constituting 63.27 per cent. in weight of the fabric, and the silk 86.78 per cent. in weight, the silk being the component. material of chief mue, held, that the merchandise was dutlable at 50 per cent. ad under paragraph 414 of the tariff act of Ocl.Qb6r 1, 18\10. and not, as classified by the collector; at 10 cents per square 1ard, and 35 per cent. ad vaZorem, under paragraph 848 of the same tartir.

At Law. Application by the collector of customs at New York for a review of of the board of United States general a,ppraisers reversing the the decision of the collector op the classification of certain merchandise entered attheport of New York in March, 1891, which was invoiced as "mixed shirtings," and returned by the appraiser as "silk and cotton shirtings, silk chief value, 10/35," and duty accordingly assessed thereon by the collector at the rate provided for cotton cloth containing an admixture of silk, at 10 cents per square yard, and, in addition thereto, 35 per cent. ad valurem, under Schedule I, par. 348, of the tariff act of October 1,1890. Against this classification the importers prtltested, claiming that their goods were dutiable only at 50 per cent. ad mlurem, under the provisions of Schedule L of said tariff act, (paragraph 414,) as