Case ID: f_141/html/0381-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOUIS METZGER & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    June 1, 1905.)
    No. 3,704.
    1. Customs Duties—Classification—Spangled Hat Ceowns—Articles of Gelatin.
    Spangled hat crowns are in a general way of the same character as the class of materials considered under the provision in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673], for fabrics, wearing apparel, trimmings, etc., including “other articles * * * composed wholly or in part” of gelatin spangles, and are dutiable under said provision for “articles,” rather than under paragraph 450 (30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678]), as manufactures of gelatin.
    2. Same—Articles Composed of Gelatin Spangles—Manufactures of Gelatin—Specific Designation.
    Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N. par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673], relating to “articles * * * composed wholly or in part of * * * spangles * * * made of gelatin,” is more specific than paragraph 450 (30 Stat 193 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1678]), relating to manufactures of gelatin.
    On application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    For decision below see G. A. 5,788, T. D. 25,578, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    Frederick W. Brooks, for importers.
    Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise in question differs from that considered and disposed of at this session of the court in Hirsch v. United States (C. C.) 141 Fed. 380, only in the fact that while the articles there under consideration were adapted to be used, and evidently were used, as ornaments and for trimmings, the merchandise herein consists, so far as this appeal is concerned, of what are known as “spangled crowns,” which constitute crowns for hats. It is therefore argued that they are not ejusdem generis with “fabrics, laces, embroidery, wearing apparel, ornaments, trimmings,” etc., under said paragraph 408. Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]. They are, however, in any evenf, “articles composed wholly or in part of * * * spangles * * * made of gelatin, not specially provided for.” These articles are in a general way of the same character as the class of materials considered under paragraph 408, and, as the designation is more specific than the general catch-all provision in paragraph 450 (30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678]) for manufactures of gelatin, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed.