Case ID: f_145/html/0843-01.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

HERRMANN v. UNITED STATES. LEON RHEIMS CO. v. SAME. SAKS & CO. v. SAME.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    February 17, 1906.)
    Nos. 3,752, 3,753, 3,970.
    Customs Duties — Classification—Beavee Stbips.
    So-called “beaver strips,” which are in the form of rectangular strips or hands of various sizes, consisting of rabbit fur and woolen cloth, used in the making of bats, the fur being the component material of chief value, are dutiable as a manufacture of fur, under paragraph 450 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897 (chapter 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3678]), and not under paragraph 370, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [U. S. Comp. St. 3901, p. 1667], as articles of wearing apparel composed wholly or in part of wool, nor under paragraph 432, c. I t, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 191 LU. S. Comp. St. 1903, p. 1675], as hats or bonnets or forms therefor composed in chief value of fur.
    On Application for Review of Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for the importers.
    Henry A. Wise, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The objection that the importer offered no testimony before the Board of General Appraisers being waived, I think that the evidence shows a sufficient identification of the merchandise specified in the invoices. The importation covers similar goods to those passed upon by Judge Townsend in Herrmann v. U. S., Rheims v. U. S., and Sullivan v. U. S. (C. C.) 141 Fed. 486, decision reported in T. D. 26,598, and upon the authority of that case, which appears to have been acquiesced in by the Treasury Department (see T. D. 26,523), the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. The articles are fur, of which fur is the component of chief value, and is dutiable under paragraph 450 of the act of July 24, 1897 (chapter 11, § 1, Schedule N., 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678]). This decision applies to Herrmann, Rheims, and Saks against the United States (three cases), appeals from the decision of the Board.

So ordered.