Case ID: f_143/html/0918-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAZEL, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. BEER.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 6, 1905.)
    No. 3,914.
    Customs Duties — Classification — Unbleached Cottons — Cloth with Bleached Figures.
    As to cotton cloth which is unbleached, except with respect to figures covering about one-eighth of the surface of the fabric, which are made of bleached threads, held, that these figures do not make the goods “bleached,” within the meaning of the various provisions for bleached cotton cloth which are found in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I, 30 Stat 175 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1655].
    On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    These proceedings relate to a decision which sustained the protest of Llenry S. Beer against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The subject of the assessment consisted of figured cotton cloth in which the warp and filling threads are composed of unbleached cotton threads, but in which the figures consisted of dots made with bleached cotton threads and covering about one-eighth of the surface of the fabric. By reason of .this bleached feature of the goods, the collector considered them “bleached” within the meaning of the various provisions for bleached cotton cloth in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I, 30 Stat. 175 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1655], and assessed duty accordingly. The importer contended that the goods should have been subjected to the duty applicable to “unbleached” cloth. Note G. A. 2,934 (T. D. 15,834). This contention being upheld by the Board of General Appraisers, the government brought these proceedings for review.
    Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    Curie, Smith & Maxwell (W. Wickham Smith, of counsel), for the importer.
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.