Case ID: f_71/html/0952-01.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

ZINN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    January 3, 1896.)
    No. 1,742.
    Cústoms Duties — Classification—Wood Fiber Sheets.
    Thin narrow strips oí wood fiber, plaited into sheets of about 24x18 inches, were dutiáble at 80 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 460 of the act of 1890, and were not entitled to free entry under the designation “Sparterre,” contained in paragraph 711; it not appearing that such goods had become known by that name in,trade and commerce in this country.
    This was an appeal by Zinn & Co. from a decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of certain imported goods. The- board held that the goods were dutiable under paragraph 460 of the act of October 1, 1890, which reads as follows:
    “460. Manufactures of bone, chip, grass, corn, India rubber, palm leaf, straw, weeds, or whale bone, or of which these substances, or either of them, is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, 30% ad valorem.”
    Albert Comstock, for plaintiffs.
    Max. J. Kohler, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   WHEELER, District Judge.

This merchandise apparently consists of thin and narrow strips of wood fiber, plaited into sheets of about 24x18 inches, and was assessed as chip under paragraph 460 of the tariff act of 1890. The protest sets it forth as free, under paragraph 711: “Sparterre, suitable for making or ornamenting hats.” It does not appear to come within the common definition of this word, which appears to include only such a manufacture of a kind of Spanish grass; and the evidence does not show that it has ever acquired that name in the trade and commerce of this country, but, rather, that it has not, although it may have that name in Germany, from whence this importation came; and it does not show at all clearly that it is suitable for either making or ornamenting hats. The protest must therefore be overruled. Judgment affirmed.