« EdellinenJatka »
shelled almonds will be avoided, when to adopt such construction would bring a number of kindred statutory provisions into utter confusion. For a construction here, we have that enforced for many years by the Treasury Department and acquiesced in by the trade during that time; and (2) Clear-shelled almonds with broken shells and dust. Clear almonds, shelled, remain almonds though they should contain a certain amount of broken kernels, dust, and shells, and they are not to be classified generally with “nuts of all kinds." They are dutiable as clear admonds, shelled, under paragraph 280, tariff act of 1909. Paragraph 283 of that act forbids any allownce for the weight of the dust and shells. United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 11, 1912. (T. D. 32201.)
Marrons, crude, nuts.-T. D. 30733, free, paragraph 635.
Walnuts of all kinds, shelled.--T. D. 32206, T. D. 31651, T. D. 31675, paragraph 281.
Clear almonds, shelled.-T. D. 30726, T. D. 31475, T. D. 32166, T. D. 32201, paragraph 280.
Ham in tins--Prepared meat.-T. D. 32017, paragraph 286.
No. 25617. Cooked ham in tins-Prepared meat.-Protests 402641, etc., of Cerecedo Hermanos & Co. (San Juan).
WAITE, General Appraiser: These cases have been submitted without evidence other than a sample of the merchandise, which shows it to be cooked ham put up in hermetically sealed tins. It is described on the printed label as “ boneless cooked ham, in one piece.” Duty was assessed thereon by the collector at 25 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 286, tariff act of 1909, for “ meats, prepared or preserved," while the importers claim it should have been assessed under paragraph 284, providing for “bacon and hams, four cents per pound.” We think it must be conceded that this ham is meat prepared; it has been cooked and may be eaten in its present condition. Furthermore, it is preserved, as the board and the courts have held that inclosing in hermetically sealed tins constitutes preservation. Habicht v. United States (T. D. 30772). Whether, by virtue of commercial designation, this commodity may still be considered within the class of " hams” provided for in paragraph 284, we can not decide from this record. The importers merely claim in their protests that “these are hams commercially known and dealt in as hams," but have not proved such contention. No testimony whatever has been offered. The protests are overruled and the collector's assessment affirmed. (T. D. 31616.)
Ham in tins-Prepared meat.-Smoked ham meat (from which the long bone has been removed, but which still contains the knucklebone) put up in a hermetically sealed tin, the meat of one ham in a tin, is not within the provision of paragraph 284, tariff act of 1909, for “bacon and hams," but is dutiable under paragraph 286 as meat, prepared or preserved. United States General Appraisers, New York, November 15, 1911. (T. D. 32017; G. A. 7299.)
Prepared meats.-Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (No. 938). Blood pudding-Sausage. Sausages made of blood pudding, being composed of material closely related to meat in every way, similar in appearance and being prepared for a similar use and being so used, were properly classified for duty, respectively, under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897 and paragraph 286, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, November 21, 1912. (T. D. 32987.)
No. 28754. Prepared meats-Blood pudding-Sausage.—Protests 198577, etc., of Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Blood pudding or sausage made with blood and lard, with some salt and seasoning, was assessed as prepared meats under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 286, tariff act of 1909. The claim that it is dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article overruled. (T. D. 32584.)
No. 26975. Sausage--Bologna-— Mortadella--Salame.- Protests 473184. etc.. of L. Gandolfi & Co. et al. (New York).
WAITE, General Appraiser: The merchandise imported in these cases is sa usage. Some of it was imported under the law of 1897 and some under the law of 1909. It has been assessed under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 286, act of 1909, both of which provide for “meats of all kinds, prepared or preserved." It is claimed to be free of duty as “sa usages, bologna," under paragraphs 655 and 667 of the acts of 1897 and 1909, respectively. The provision under the two acts is identical; hence the question, and the only question to be decided, is whether this sausage is bologna sausage such as is intended to be covered by the provisions in the two acts.
The commodity in these cases is sliced and placed in semicircular tins containing about two thin slices of sausage. An inspection of the sample shows that the slices are immersed in grease or fat of some kind. The tin covering seems to be a very elaborate and expensive covering for the quantity and style of the commodity. This sausage was imported from Italy. It is a prired product, made of beef and pork, sometimes one predominating in quantity and sometimes the other. Considerable testimony has been taken. That on the part of the importers shows the sausage is made in and about the city of Bologna, and is sold as “mortadella ” and “salame," and those terms are construed by the importers' witnesses, and in the trade with which they are familiar, as meaning bologna sausage. We gather from the testimony that it is so considered because it is made in Bologna. This board has expressed its views with reference to what bologna sausage is and has had occasion to pass on these two commodities, holding in Abstract 15546 (T. D. 28205) that mortadella was not bologna as described in the statute, and in the case of Vitelli & Son, G. A. 6371 (T. D. 27361), that salame was not bologna. It appears from the testimony produced in these cases by the Government that there is in the United States, and has been since and previous to the enactment of the law of 1897, a commodity well known as “bologna sausage." It does not conform to the description of the merchandise before us. This testimony is positive and based upon wide experience in the trade and in the manufacture of meat products. Hence we are unable to find from the testimony in these cases that there has been shown a commercial designation which would warrant us in holding that these goods are bologna sausages. The protests are therefore overruled, affirming the finding of the collector. (T. D. 31971.)
PARAGRAPH 287. No. 29661. Bouillon cubes--Extracts of meat.-Protest 564105 of R. F. Lang & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. So-called “bouillon cubes" held dutiable by similitude under the provision for “extract of meat" under paragraph 287, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 21749 (T. D. 29974) followed. Protest overruled. (T. D. 32801.)
Marmite-Extract of meat-Similitude.-T. D. 32030. Paragraph 480.
PARAGRAPH 289. Homing pigeons.--Homing pigeons, to be released for flight, dutiable as live poultry at the rate of 3 cents per pound under paragraph 289, tariff act of 1909, or free of duty under bond under paragraph 493 of the said act. Treasury Department, November 21, 1911. (T. D. 32026.)
PARAGRAPH 290. No. 26793. "Curriers' grease"-Distilled wool grease.- Protests 440193, etc. of J. W. Greenbalgh & Co. (Boston). Merchandise invoiced as “Curriers' grease" and classified as wool grease, refined, under paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as crude wool grease, under the same paragraph.
MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: * From the evidence in the case there is no mistaking the fact that the merchandise is not what it is claimed to be by protestants, and we are inclined to think that it is equally clear that it is not refined wool grease as contended ty the Government. Accepting the evidence of the chemist, who not only analyzed the merchandise but passed it officially as examiner, we are forced to the conclusion that this grease is a product of wool grease, the result of distillation. It is therefore neither a crude
wool grease nor such a grease refined or improved in value or condition. It has ceased to be either and has become a new article with a new name suitable for purposes to which, so far as the record shows, wool grease is not adapted. It is our view that it is properly subject to duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under the provision for all greases not specially provided for in paragraph 3 of the said tariff act of 1909, but this claim not being made, the protests must be overruled, and the assessments of duty by the collector must therefore stand. (T. D. 31912.)
Refined wool grease.-Koechl & Co. v. United States (No. 786). Adeps lanaeWool grease. Adeps lanae, or lanolin, is used as a basis for ointments and as a carrier for soluble medicinal salts, and the evidence shows that without the addition of medicinal agents it has no therapeutic value. The more specific provision levying duty upon it is to be found in paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909. It is dutiable under that paragraph as wool grease refined or improved in value or condition. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 31, 1912. (T. D. 32619.)
No. 25833. Tallow.--Protest 436829 of L. Sonneborn Sons (New York). Merchandise invoiced as “Ring grease" and classified as grease not specially provided for, under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as tallow (par. 290). MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser:
From the record it satisfactorily appears that this grease is tallow, containing only an insignificant trace of soap, and therefore the claim under paragraph 290 is sustained. (T. D. 31675.)
Lanolin-Medicinal preparation.-T. D. 31912, paragraph 65.
Chocolate in lithographic tins.—Chocolate in lithographic tins dutiable under paragraph 292, tariff act of 1909, and the tins not separately dutiable under paragraph 195 of said act. Treasury Department, August 16, 1912. (T. D. 32764.)
Dekofa.—Coffee beans from which the caffein has been extracted dutiable under paragraph 294, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 24 cents per pound. Treasury Department, January 25, 1912. (T. D. 32187.)
No. 27185. Spanish pimento--Red pepper.- Protest 574038 of Woolson Spice Co. (Toledo).
WAITE, General Appraiser: The commodity in question here is a ground red pepper, being invoiced as Spanish pimenton." It is known as the Spanish pepper or pimento. The term is sometimes confused with pimento, which is allspice. See G. A. 6667 (T. D. 28427). We think this merchandise is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 298, tariff act of 1909, for “capsicum or red pepper” at 21 cents per pound. It is true it is different from our red pepper which belongs to the same family, being milder and less pungent to the taste. The protest is sustained, the assessment of the merchandise as a spice under paragraph 298 being reversed. (T. D. 32031.)
Thyme-Savory_Crude drugs.—T. D. 31813, free, paragraph 559.
Black currant vinegar-Fruit sirup.-T. D. 32780, paragraph 310.
No. 25422. Chinese wine-Spirituous beverage.-- Protests 435994, etc., of Wing Tai Lung Wo Kee & Co. et al. (San Francisco). A spirituous beverage made by a process of distillation from rice, and containing from 29 to 56 per cent of alcohol, which was classified under paragraph 300, tariff act of 1909, as spirits,
was claimed to be dutiable as “rice wine" (par. 307). Vote G. 1. 7213 (T. D. 31523). WAITE, General Appraiser:
While we think this substance should have been assessed as a spirituous beverage under paragraph 303, still the rate of duty provided by paragraph 303 on spirituous beverage is the same as that levied under paragraph 300 on spirits. The assessment will therefore stand, as we conclude the commodity is not dutiable under paragraph 307, as claimed by the importers. (T. D. 31543.)
PARAGRAPHI 301. Gauge of liquors.-Standard temperature of 60° F. Imported liquors are dutiable on the basis of their condition and measurement at the standard temperature of 60° F. prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is the rule adopted in ga uging liquors under the internal-revenue laws. This rule seems reasonable and valid. United States General Appraisers, New York, July 31, 1911. (T. D. 31796; G. A. 7253.)
PARAGRAPH 303. Chinese wine.-Chinese wine, so called, which is a spirituous bererage made by a process of distillation from rice and which contains a high percentage of alcohol, is dutiable under paragraph 303, tariff act of 1909, as a “spirituous beverage," and not under paragraph 307 as “rice wine." United States General Appraisers, New York, April 24, 1911. (T. D. 31523; G. A. 7213.)
No. 27045.—“ Zabajone”—Eggnog-Spirituous beverage.- Protest 479586 of Italo-American Express Co. (New York).
WAITE, General Appraiser: The commodity is invoiced in this case as " zapajone," and is described by the appraiser as “a mixture of marsala wine and eggs containing spirits, known as eggnog." It is a rather thick yellow liquid, and is used as a beverage. It has been assessed under paragraph 303, tariff act of 1909, and is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 307. The pertinent portions of the two paragraphs read as follows:
“ 303. Cordials, liqueurs, arrack. absinthie, kirschwasser, r:itafia, and other spirituous beverages or bitters of all kinds, containing spirits, and not specially provided for in this section, two dollars and sixty cents per proof gallon.
“307. Still wines, including ginger wine or ginger cordial, vermuth, and rice wine or sake, and similar beverages not specially provided for in this section." An analysis of this commodity shows that it contains absolute alcohol by volume 19.61 per cent, and by weight 37 per cent of cane sugar, 2.60 per cent of albumen, 44.29 per cent of water, and 0.18 per cent of ash, while alcohol by weight is 15.93 per cent. The claim is made that under paragraph 303 the term “C
containing spirits” has reference to spirits as such, and that within the meaning of the statute a beverage does not contain spirits if it contains only such alcohol as is derived from the wine used in the preparation of the bererage under consideration. We can not so hold. The provision in paragraph 303 for “beverages or bitters of all kinds containing spirits" is very comprehensive. We think it was intended that the statute should cover alcohol, as such, whether found as a constituent part of some beverage or mixed in its purity to make up a spirituous drink or liquor. Note United States v. Shoemaker (84 Fed. Rep., 146). The protest is overruled. (T. D. 31987.)
Raspberry sirup--Fruit juice. T. D. 31845, paragraph 310.
Imitation champagne.-T. D. 31236, paragraph 306.
PARAGRAPH 306. No. 24660. Imitation champagne.- Protest 470007 of American Express Co. (St. Louis).
An importation of "Champagne d'Ananas Monopole” was classified as champagne under paragraph 306, tariff act of 1909, by reason of the following provision in paragraph 304 of said act: "All imitations of brandy or spirits or wines imported by any means whatever shall be subject to the highest rate of duty provided for the genuine articles respectively intended to be represented
It is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 311,
as “ginger ale, ginger beer, lemonade, soda water, and other similar beverages containing no alcohol
Protest overruled. (T. D. 31236.)
Leakage.-Cataldi Aurola et al. v. United States (No. 593). Allowance for breakage, leakage, etc. The proviso to paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909, forbidding allowance to be made for breakage, leakage, etc., of merchandise therein described, must be strictly construed and can not be made to apply to merchandise not within its terms; but the legality of that provision itself is now stare decisis. The board rightly held the leakage here to be dutiable. United States Court of Customs Appeals, November 28, 1911. (T. D. 32077.)
Leakage of sake.-Furuya & Co. v. United States (No. 668). Leakage of rice wine or sake. In the past there has been much contention over sake and the leakage of sake, but the tariff act of 1909 would seem, by providing in paragraph 307 for rice wine or sake expressly and forbidding any allowance should be made for breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, to have placed the question beyond doubt. It was properly held, as here, no such allowance should be made on sake. United States Court of Customs Appeals, December S, 1911. (T. D. 32095.)
Leakage of sake under act of 1909.--An allowance for leakage of sake is prohibited by the terms of paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909. United States GenAral Appraisers, New York, February 11, 1911. (T. D. 31293; G. A. 7164.)
Alcohol in still wines.—Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 827). An excess of 14 per cent of alcohol in still wines. The wine here was tested in accordance with the regulations of the Treasury. It was ascertained to contain absolute alcohol perceptibly in excess of 14 per cent. This finding leaves no room for construction. The wines were dutiable as assessed at 60 cents per gallon under paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Lueder (154 Fed. Rep., 1; T. D. 27918). United States Court of Customs Appeals, April 17, 1912. (T. D. 32462.)
No. 27825. Still wine-Sparkling winc.—Protest 507983–37168 of W. H. Kidston (Chicago). French wine labeled Vouray and classified as sparkling wine under paragraph 306, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as still wine (par. 307). Protest sustained.
SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: * The testimony taken at Chicago was very conflicting as to the nature of the wine. Sample bottles of the wine were thereupon submitted to the examiner of wines at the port of New York, whose experience as Government examiner of wines and liquors covers 45 years. He unhesitatingly pronounced the wine to be a still wine and not a sparkling wine, as evidenced by the wine itself and from the manner it was corked. Upon opening the bottle introduced in evidence and marked Exhibit 2, the wine did not show the slightest sign of effervescence.
(T. D. 32297.) Chinese wine.-T. D. 31523, paragraph 303. Chinese wine-Spirituous beverage.-T. D. 31543, paragraph 300. “Zabajone"-Eggnog-Spirituous beverage.-T. D. 31987, paragraph 303.
Wantage on ale in casks.—United States v. Cummings et al. (No. 763). Cummings et al. v. United States (No. 769). (1) Consolidation of hearings. The several protests were virtually filed by the same party; the questions raised by these protests and the testimony offered apply alike to all the importations. No prejudice resulted from the consolidation of the hearings. (2) Allowance for shortage of ale in casks, generally. There is no inhibition of allowance for a shortage in ale imports, and it was error on the part of the collector to ignore the actual shortage in the importation as reported by the gaugers. (3) Dregs in ale. Dregs and lees in ale are not usable ale, but neither is a foreign impurity. They are dutiable as a part of the importation. (4) Allowance here. The question of wantage and the proper allowance for it is essentially one of fact, and upon the evidence in this case a proper allowance is found to be 3 per cent of the invoice or standard capacity of the several kinds of cases containing the ale. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 8, 1912. (T. D. 32576.)