We think it unnecessary to recite fully the several processes to which each article under consideration has been subjected before attaining its present form and shape. It suffices to say that in each instance the original flat shape, form, or plate of steel is cut or sheared to the proper size and form and then by successive processes in machines adapted thereto, which processes are designated as shearing, stamping, pressing, or spinning, as the case may be, the article is made to assume its completed form when imported; and if it is composed of more than one part, these parts are fastened together, and all are ready for the enameling process. The process of enameling, as appears by the record, in substance, is this: The subject is dipped in a bath of muriatic acid to form a scale, this scale or layer of steel is taken off, then it goes through an acid bath, is pickled, washed, and dried, then receives a coat of enamel, which is allowed to dry, and is then subjected to heat in a furnace, which burns the enamel in. For convenience, we insert here so much of the respective paragraphs as seems to be pertinent: * * * pressed, sheared or stamped shapes; * * * * 135. all descriptions and shapes of dry sand, loam, or iron-moulded steel castings; sheets and plates and steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for in this act. . * 193. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, * * whether partly or wholly manufactured. * * * * It is claimed by the appellants in each case that these importations are "pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes" of steel or "steel in all forms and shapes" within the meaning of paragraph 135. The Government contends that the merchandise is more aptly described by the language of paragraph 193 as "articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, and whether partly or wholly manufactured." We think the appellants' contention can not be sustained. * * * No commercial designation is claimed or shown; therefore the language under consideration must be given its common and ordinary meaning. We do not think that the terms "pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes" or "steel in all forms and shapes" are so specific or apt a description of the merchandise here as are the words "articles or wares, composed of steel, whether wholly or partly manufactured." A reading of paragraph 135 clearly indicates that pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes of steel and steel in all forms and shapes aptly applies to the plates, forms, and shapes of steel which are the crude material for subsequent manufacture, and not to the forms and shapes they assume, as in this case, which are the results of such manufacture. It is clear from the evidence that the processes which the original. flat shapes and forms of the steel plate have undergone to produce the articles here are manufacturing processes; that as a result the articles before us have taken new, different, and distinctive shapes and forms that indicate clearly the purpose for which they are designed and for which only in their present form they can be used. They would not ordinarily be described by the words "pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes, or steel in all forms and shapes," but would more aptly be designated as "unfinished pitchers, handles, knobs, spouts, covers," or such other appropriate name as their shape, form, and intended use would readily suggest, which words of themselves imply the products of manufacturing processes. They have passed beyond the stage of pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes of steel, or forms and shapes of steel within the meaning of paragraph 135, and are articles or wares of steel partly or wholly manufactured. The appellants place much reliance upon the fact that the processes to which these articles have been subjected are in the main shearing, stamping, and pressing processes, claiming in effect that whatever is so produced is a sheared, stamped, or pressed shape. But this is manifestly fallacious. The evidence shows that, aside from enameling them, entirely finished articles, such as a frying pan, etc., can be produced by the same processes. We think it could not be held that such finished articles were sheared, stamped, or pressed shapes; no more can it be said that the articles involved here which are finished and ready for the enameling process are such shapes. They are each ready in the condition as imported for the immediate use for the object for which it was intended, namely, the subjecting them to the enameling process and then the union with the other necessary parts of a finished article of enameled ware. United States v. Prosser (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 22; T. D. 30848). Maldonado v. United States (176 Fed. Rep., 737). It is urged in argument on behalf of appellants that if the classification of the collector be sustained it results that these articles are subject to a higher duty than the finished product would be, and paragraph 159 of the act of 1897 and decisions of the Board of General Appraisers thereunder are referred to as supporting the contention. It is argued that such a conclusion is inconsistent and that Congress can not be presumed to have intended that the various parts of an article of which enameled ware is made should pay a higher rate of duty than the completed article after it has been subjected to the enameling process. This, however, can not affect the question. If the appellants' claim be sustained, it results that these nearly finished articles pay no more duty than the original flat sheets of steel of which they are made would pay, a result, as we view it, equally inconsistent. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.. NEWMAN-ANDREW Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 149). UNITED STATES v. NEWMAN ANDREW Co. (No. 152).1 1. "PLATES" DEFINED. The testimony in the record is at one with the authority of the lexicons in emphasizing the fact that "plate" both in common parlance and in commerce is used to designate an article distinct from "drawplate," being in fact the thing out of which "drawplates" are made. The term "plate" is not generic, including "drawplate" as a species. 2. DRAWPLATES AND WORTLES, HOW DUTIABLE. Drawplates and wortles forged from the ingot through various stages and reaching the condition as here imported, namely, the final shape in which they are delivered to the consumer, the adjusting processes to which they are necessarily subjected being merely incidental to the common use of drawplates and wortles, are articles, it is true, of steel, wholly or partly manufactured, but they are more specifically "forgings of steel" and were dutiable, accordingly, under paragraph 127 rather than under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 1, 1911. CROSS-APPEALS transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York, G. A. 6925 (T. D. 29930). [Modified and affirmed.] Brown & Gerry for importer, appellant, and appellee. D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin on the brief), for the United States. Before MONTGOMERY, HUNT, SMITH, BARBER, and De VRIES, Judges. DE VRIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: These are cross-appeals from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers. The merchandise consists of what was termed in the invoice "wortles" and "drawplates." The drawplates are from 13 to 18 inches long by 4 to 5 inches wide and from 1 to 13 inches thick. The wortles are approximately 8 inches long by 11 inches wide and 11⁄2 inches thick. Both are forged from the ingot through various stages to their condition as imported. The so-called drawplate contains 18 holes, one end being hammered down to form a handle, and the wortles 6 holes, all of diminishing diameters, being from 3 to 13 inches on the face and gradually diminishing to a minute perforation on the back. The testimony is uniform that each is made by forging processes exclusively and each used as part of a wire-drawing machine. The collector at the port of New York assessed them for duty as "articles and wares of steel partly or wholly manufactured" under paragraph 193 of the tariff act of 1897. The importers make claim that they are either "plates" or "steel in all forms and shapes," under paragraph 135, or "forgings of steel" under paragraph 127 of the same act. 1 Reported in T. D. 31570 (20 Treas. Dec., 944). The pertinent portions of these paragraphs are as follows: 193. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five * * per centum ad valorem. * 127. Iron or steel anchors or parts thereof, one and one-half cents per pound; forgings of iron or steel, or of combined iron and steel, of whatever shape or whatever degree or stage of manufacture, not specially provided for in this act, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; antifriction ball forgings of iron or steel, or of combined iron and steel, forty-five per centum ad valorem. 135. Steel ingots, cogged ingots, blooms, and slabs, by whatever process made; die blocks or blanks; billets and bars and tapered or beveled bars; mill shafting; pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes; saw plates, wholly or partially manufactured; hammer molds or swaged steel; gun barrel molds not in bars; alloys used as substitutes for steel in the manufacture of tools; all descriptions and shapes of dry sand, loam, or ironmolded steel castings; sheets and plates and steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for in this act. (Here follow specific rates of duty.) * * * The Board of General Appraisers held the drawplates to be dutiable as "plates,” basing their decision upon the testimony in the record introduced to prove that they are commercially known as plates. The wortles were held by the board to be dutiable as forgings. The Government appeals as to the drawplates, and the importer as to the wortles. The Government here maintains that both are dutiable as "articles of steel partly or wholly manufactured" at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 193. The importer contends, first, that they are dutiable as "plates" by reason of commercial designation, or as "steel in all forms or shapes not specially provided for" under paragraph 135, or as "forgings under paragraph 127. The issues here presented have been the subject of previous decisions by the Board of General Appraisers and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The previous case covered precisely similar merchandise imported by the same importers. In the first case, as in this, the collector assessed the merchandise for duty as "articles of steel" under paragraph 193. On the appeal to the courts from the board the importer waived the contention that the merchandise was "steel in all forms and shapes" and asserted the single claim that they were plates. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the waiver by the importer deprived his claim of all merit, and held that neither of the articles was within the general scope of the word plate as used in paragraph 135. The issue again being presented to the Board of General Appraisers, testimony was introduced by the importer with a view to showing that the drawplates were within the commercial signification of plates as used in paragraph 135 and so understood in trade and commerce. There was no testimony even tending to show the trade understanding of wortles. The board held, as above stated, and hence the cross appeals. Whether or not the court of appeals in the case previously presented to that court passed upon the question of the applicability of trade testimony as affecting the term plates as used in paragraph 135 is a mooted question. The expressions of the court would seem to indicate that it considered the term to have been used in its ordinary signification. Regardless of that issue, however, this court is of the opinion that the testimony introduced by the importer does not show that the imported merchandise, or any part thereof, is comprehended by the term plates as used in paragraph 135. The testimony shows that the wholesale trade generally, wherein the merchandise is bought and sold, refers to the particular merchandise as "drawplates," "wire plates," "drawing plates," and "wire drawing plates." It appears that in specific instances, when addressing the particular trade, "plates" has been used, but that the general and uniform custom of the trade is to indulge in one of the names stated. Counsel for the importer lays much stress upon the signification of the word drawplate, and quotes the definitions of the various lexicographic authorities in his support. They are as follows: Webster's International Dictionary: Drawplate.-A hardened steel plate having a hole, or a gradation of conical holes, through which wires are drawn to be reduced or elongated. Century Dictionary: Drawplate.-A drilled plate of steel or a drilled ruby through which a wire, or a metal ribbon or tube, is drawn to reduce its caliber and equalize it, or to give it a particular shape. Standard Dictionary: Drawplate.-A hard plate with holes of successively diminishing diameters for drawing out metal rods or wire. A lexicographic definition of plate given by Lockwood's Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering Terms, which is essentially that given by others, is as follows: Plate.-A broad, thin sheet of metal. That definition is in accordance with the common understanding of the term. The definitions of drawplate, quoted by counsel, when read in connection with the definition of plate as quoted, emphasizes perfectly the fact, which is corroborated by every witness who testified, to wit, that drawplate is something more than plate. * Webster defines drawplate as "A hardened steel plate having a hole, or a gradation of conical holes, * *." That is to say that it is a plate to which something has been done or added to bring it within the category known as drawplate. The Century Dictionary states it to be "A drilled plate of steel * * *." That is to say that it was originally a plate of steel which has been drilled in such a manner as to at least partially fit it for its subsequent use. |