BEFORE THE THIRD DIVISION, January 3, 1935 No. 29668.-Protests 720867-G, etc., of B. Blumenthal & Co. et al. (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 12 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29669.-Protests 718136-G, etc., of Bailey Green & Elger (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 11⁄2 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29670.-Protests 715961-G, etc., of Bailey Green & Elger (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 12 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29671.-Protest 715960-G of Gotham Button Co. (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 12 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29672.-Protests 707226-G, etc., of L. Strauss (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 11⁄2 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29673.-Protests 707223-G, etc., of B. Blumenthal & Co. et al. (New York). BUTTONS.-Buttons classified at 11⁄2 cents per line per gross and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 45 percent ad valorem under the same paragraph. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Freitag (21 C. C. P. A. 500, T. D. 46961) certain of the buttons in question were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1510 as claimed. No. 29674.-Protest 705547-G of James G. Hardy & Co. (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY Marked-QUILTS.-This protest is against the assessment of 10 percent additional duty under section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, on an importation of quilts. Opinion by CLINE, J. It was stipulated that the immediate containers of the quilts, which consisted of paper wrappers, and the wooden cases, were marked to indicate the country of origin but that the quilts were not so marked. In accordance therewith and on the authority of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and Givaudan Delawanna v. United States (id. 115, T. D. 47104) the protest was sustained. No. 29675.-Protest 658256-G of Finchley, Inc. (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-HANDKERCHIEFS.-This protest is against the assessment of 10 percent additional duty under section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, on certain handkerchiefs reported as not legally marked to indicate the country of origin. Opinion by CLINE, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the handkerchiefs in question were marked to indicate the country of origin but that the immediate containers were not so marked, the protest was sustained. Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and Givaudan Delawanna v. United States (id. 115, T. D. 47104) followed. No. 29676.-Protest 639290-G of Harry P. Lippincott (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-RUGS-UPHOLSTERY GOODS.-This protest is against the assessment of 10 percent additional duty under section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, on certain merchandise reported as not legally marked to indicate the country of origin. Opinion by CLINE, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of upholstery goods and rugs, that the immediate containers thereof were marked to indicate the country of origin, but that the upholstery goods and rugs were not so marked. Following Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and Givaudan Delawanna v. United States (id. 115, T. D. 47104) the protest was sustained. No. 29677.-Protest 624085-G of Flax & Gilbert (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED-HAIR PENCILS.-Hair pencils were assessed with 10 percent additional duty under section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as not legally marked. Opinion by CLINE, J. It was stipulated that the hair pencils in question were marked to indicate the country of origin but that the immediate containers thereof were not so marked. Following Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A 111, T. D. 47103) and Givaudan Delawanna v. United States (id. 115, T. D. 47104) the protest was sustained. No. 29678.-Protest 707117-G of H. & W. Food Products Corp. (New York). MERCHANDISE NOT LEGALLY MARKED CHEESE.-This protest is against the assessment of 10 percent additional duty under section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, on an importation of cheese. Opinion by CLINE, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of loaves of cheese packed in cases, that the loaves were legally marked with the country of origin but that the immediate containers were not so marked, and that the cases were legally marked after arrival into the United States before they were released from customs custody. Following Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 111, T. D. 47103) and Givaudan Delawanna v. United States (id. 115, T. D. 47104) the protest was sustained. No. 29679.-Protest 491375-G of Wing Yee Yuen Co. (New York). DECAYED CHESTNUTS-REGULATIONS.-It is claimed in this case that duty should not have been assessed on certain chestnuts which were totally destroyed by decay prior to importation. Opinion by CLINE, J. The record shows that the importer failed to comply with the mandatory customs regulations under section 505, Tariff Act of 1922, but plaintiff's counsel contended that notwithstanding this fact the shipment should be treated as a nonimportation under the principle stated in Lawder v. Stone (187 U. S. 281) and other cited cases. It was found that the evidence failed to establish that the 30 cases of chestnuts here involved were totally destroyed by decay prior to arrival in this country. On the record presented the court overruled the protest saying: "the mere statement by the importer that he believes it would have required two or three weeks in improper surroundings for these chestnuts to have reached the state of decay in which he found them on the fifth day after importation, is entirely speculative and is not sufficiently competent evidence to establish affirmatively that the destruction occurred prior to importation." No. 29680.-Petition 5252-R of M. Minkus (New York). REMISSION-DISCOUNT.—This petition is for remission of additional duties under section 489, Tariff Act of 1922, on miniature dictionaries. Opinion by CLINE, J. The record showed that this undervaluation was due to a controversy with respect to a question of law involving the dutiable status of a discount. On the record presented it was found that the importer exercised due diligence prior to entry and acted without intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted. No. 29681.-Protest 665322-G of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles). CURRENCY VALUE.-The question in this case is the rate at which the currency of the invoice, English pounds, should have been converted into United States dollars under section 522, Tariff Act of 1930. Opinion by EVANS, J. It appears that the merchandise was entered on a pro forma invoice consisting of 9 sheets bearing the dates May 4, 5, and 8, 1933. The entry notes the date of arrival as June 6 and the number of invoices which said entry covers is noted as "1." The plaintiff claims that there are three separate invoices and as each bears a different date the currency should have been converted as of the date of each invoice. The collector adopted the latest of these dates under authority of article 824 (e) (5), Customs Regulations of 1931. Plaintiff produced no proof as to the actual date of exportation. The protest was overruled. No. 29682.-Protest 616279-G of Edward Brenner (New York). LILY BUDS-CUT FLOWERS.-Lily buds imported from Bermuda assessed as cut flowers at 40 percent ad valorem under paragraph 753, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed entitled to free entry under paragraph 1722. Opinion by EVANS, J. Several witnesses were called by the plaintiff but on the record presented it was found that he had not proved his claim. The protest was therefore overruled. Brenner v. United States (T. D. 45666), affirmed in Brenner v. United States (20 C. C. P. A. 373, T. D. 46134), cited. BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION, JANUARY 4, 1935 No. 29683.-Protests 399576-G, etc., of Draeger Shipping Co. et al. (New York). DOGSKINS.-Dogskins classified at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1420, Tariff Act of 1922, are claimed dutiable, among other things, at 10 percent under the same paragraph. Opinion by MCCLELLAND, P. J. On the record presented it was found that the dogskins in question are the same or similar to those the subject of Arnhold v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 23, T. D. 47036). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1420 was sustained. No. 29684.-Protest 401193-G of Am-Derutra Transport Corp. (New York). DOGSKINS.-Dogskins classified at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1420, Tariff Act of 1922, are claimed dutiable, among other things, at 10 percent under the same paragraph. Opinion by MCCLELLAND, P. J. Following Arnhold v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 23, T. D. 47036) the protest was sustained. No. 29685.-Protests 339574-G, etc., of W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. (New York). DOGSKINS.-Dogskins classified at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1420, Tariff Act of 1922, are claimed dutiable, among other things, at 10 percent under the same paragraph. Opinion by MCCLELLAND, P. J. The testimony showed that the merchandise in question is similar to that the subject of Arnhold v. United States (22 C. C. P. A. 23, T. D. 47036). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1420 was sustained. BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION, JANUARY 4, 1935 No. 29686.-Protest 682129-G of Sprouse-Reitz Co. (Portland, Oreg.). DAGGERS-HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS.-Silver-plated antimony candlesticks classified at 65 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 339. Rubber daggers are claimed dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the candlesticks in question are chiefly used in the kitchen, household, or on the table for utilitarian purposes and that they are articles of hollow ware. In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained. Following Abstract 27245 the rubber daggers in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 as claimed. No. 29687.-Protest 723803-G of Paul Hanson Co. (New York). CANDLESTICKS-HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS.-Metal candlesticks classified at 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 26440 the candlesticks in question were held to be table or household utensils, or hollow ware. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained. No. 29688.-Protests 722762-G, etc., of Ellis Silver Co., Inc. (New York). HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS-CANDLESTICKS CANDELABRA - INKSTANDS.--Merchandise classified at 65 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, is claimed dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of candlesticks, candelabra, and inkstands chiefly used for table or household utensils, plated with silver. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. Dow v. United States (21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816) cited. No. 29689.-Protest 661732-G of William Adams, Inc. (New York). HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS-CANDELABRA-CANDLESTICKS.-Merchandise classified at 65 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, is claimed dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of candelabra, candle reflectors, candlesticks, chambers and glasses, inkstands, stormlights, and wax jacks chiefly used for utilitarian purposes in the kitchen, household, or on the table, or are articles of hollow ware, plated with silver. In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained. No. 29690.-Protests 567153-G, etc., of Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., et al. (New York). HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS.—Boxes, trays, and vases classified at 45 or 65 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the articles in question are chiefly used on the table, in the kitchen, or in the household for utilitarian purposes, or are hollow ware. Following United States v. Friedlaender (21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and Dow v. United States (id. 282, T. D. 46816) the articles plated with silver were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 339 and those not plated at 40 percent under the same paragraph, as claimed. No. 29691.-Protests 415823-G, etc., of Ovington Bros. & Co. et al. (New York). HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS.-Merchandise classified at 60 percent ad valorem under paragraph 399, Tariff Act of 1922, is claimed dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of United States v. Friedlaender (21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and Dow v. United States (id. 282, T. D. 46816) fruit coolers, boxes, coups, vases, inkstands, trays, pincushions, candlesticks, table bells, sugar and creamer, dishes, jars, baskets, cocktail shakers, plates, flasks, and cruet stands, used for utilitarian purposes on the table, in the kitchen, or in the household, or hollow ware, were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. No. 29692.-Protests 346949-G, etc., of Bingham & Co. et al. (New York). HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS.-Merchandise classified at 60 percent ad valorem under paragraph 399, Tariff Act of 1922, is claimed dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of pepper shakers, sugar and milk, crumb sets, plying set, coffee pot, vases, jars, koro, bowls, writing sets, trays, slides, holders, liquor sets, cups, boxes, burners, inkstands, candlesticks, Buddhas, baskets, pincushions, salt cellers, plates, dishes, and cocktail set chiefly used on the table, in the kitchen, or in the household for utilitarian purposes, or hollow ware. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained. United States v. Friedlaender (21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and Dow v. United States (id. 282, T. D. 46816) followed. No. 29693.-Protests 496400–G, etc., of Keuffel & Esser Co. (New York). MAP MEASURES.-Map measures classified at 55 cents or $1 each and 65 percent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 368, Tariff Act of 1930, are claimed dutiable as mathematical instruments at 40 percent under paragraph 360. Opinion by DALLINGER, J. It was stipulated that the map measures in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 23489. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 360 was sustained. No. 29694.-Protest 509475-G of Arthur Sichel (Philadelphia). DISPLAY FIGURES.-Certain advertising or display figures classified at $1.50, $3, or $4.50 each, plus 65 percent ad valorem under paragraph 368, Tariff Act of 1930, as clockwork mechanisms, are claimed dutiable at various lower rates. An earlier decision was reported in Abstract 26992. |