Case ID: f_123/html/1002-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TOWNSEND, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHULEMANN v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    April 20, 1901.)
    No. 2,863.
    1. Customs Duties—Classification—Flax Fabrics.
    In construing tariff act of July 24, 1897, e. 11, ? 1, Schedule J, par. 346, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1663], which relates to “woven fabrics or articles” of flax, etc., with a proviso “that none of the foregoing articles in this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than fifty per centum ad valorem,” held, that this proviso includes the foregoing “woven fabrics” as well as “articles.”
    Appeal by F. Schulemann, an importer, from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which sustained the action of the collector of customs at the port of New York in the classification for duty of the importations in question. See G. A. 4120.
    Everit Brown, for importer.
    C. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The merchandise in question comprises. woven fabrics composed of flax, weighing over 4V> ounces per square yard, which were assessed for duty under the proviso of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 346, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1663], at 50 per cent, ad valorem, the compound rates named in the main part of the paragraph being as to those goods less than 50 per cent. The importer contends that as these goods are fabrics in the piece they are not subject to the bar of such proviso, and that the latter applies only to “articles” as contradistinguished from goods in the piece. It having been recently decided, however, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of United States v. McBratney, 45 C. C. A. 37, 105 Fed. 767, that the term “woven fabrics,” found in this proviso, includes either piece goods or made-up articles, it cannot consistently be held that the word “articles” in the proviso does not include fabrics in the piece.

The decision of the Board of Appraisers is affirmed.