Case ID: f_71/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WHEELER, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALTMAN & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    January 4, 1896.)
    Customs Duties — Act Aug. 28, 1894 — Classification—Paintings on Plaques.
    Free-hand paintings on plaqnes, painted with jected to a process of firing, which sets and changes the colors, held to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, as “plaques * * painted in any manner,” under paragraph 85 of the tariff act of August 28, 3894, and not free as “paintings, in oil or water colors, 9 » * not otherwise provided for in this act,” and “not made wholly or in part by * 9 9 mecli.-mical process,” under paragraph 575 of said act
    This was an appeal by Altman & Co. from a decision of (he board of general appraisers affirming the action of the collector of the port of New York in the classification for duty of certain imported free-hand paintings on china plaqnes, which were fired to fix the colors; the colors used being mineral colors.
    The contention of the importers was that the goods were free, under paragraph 575, as free-hand paintings.
    1’or contra, the government contended:
    (.Í) That paragraph 575 covers only paintings in oil or water colors. The goods in suit were plaques painted with mineral colors.
    (2) That paragraph 575 docs not include paintings made wholly or in part by mechanical process. The goods in suit were fired, which set and changed Ihe colors, and tins was a mechanical process, producing the finished plaque.
    (3) That paragraph 575 covers only such paintings as are not otherwise inwided for, while paragraph 85 includes all “plaques * * 9 painted * s o jn any manner,” without reservation or exception.
    (4) That paragraph 85 is the most specific provision for the goods In the act of 1891, and specifically provides for them.
    (5) flection 2 of the act of August 28, 1894 (the free list section), only covers anieles that are not “otherwise provided for in this act.”
    Stephen (t. Clarke, for importers.
    Henry 0. Platt, Asst. ü. S. Atty.
   WHEELER, District Judge.

By paragraph Ho. 85 of the tariff act of 1894, “china, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone and crockery ware, including plaques, ornaments, toys, charms, vases, and statuettes, painted, tinted, enameled, printed, gilded or otherwise decoral ed in any manner,” are subjected to a duty of 35 per centiim ad valorem; and, by paragraph Ho. 575, “paintings in oil or water colors, * * * not otherwise provided for, * * * and' not made wholly or in part by stencilling or other mechanical process,” are placed upon the free list. This importation is of plaques, freehand painted, without other process, but firing to fix the colors to the ware, and has been assessed under paragraph 85, notwithstanding a protest that it should have been admitted free, under paragraph 575. Paragraph Ho. 85 clearly provides for painted plaqnes, without qualification as to the kind or value of the painting. This is more specific than the provision putting oil paintings on the free list; and these paintings cannot take the plaqnes to that list. Judgment affirmed.