Case ID: f_172/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PLATT, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MORIMURA BROS. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    May 21, 1908.)
    No. 5,015.
    Customs Duties (§ 36*) — Classification—Paper Napkins — “Printed Matter.”
    • The provision for “printed matter” in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 403, 30 Stat. 189 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673), does not include .Japanese napkins made of crinkled paper and ornamented with designs in colors, stenciled, stamped, or printed thereon.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 36.
    
    For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5563, 5564; vol. 8, p. 7763.]
    .On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. •
    The decision below, which is reported as G. A. 6,651. (T. D. 28,350), affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The Board’s opinion reads as follows:
    FISCHER, General Appraiser. This protest relates to the assessment .of duty under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 407, 30 Stat. 189 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673), as manufactures of paper, on certain napkins made of crinkled ergpe paper and ornamented with designs in colors stenciled and stamped or printed thereon from blocks of wood. The importers claim that duty should have been properly assessed at the rate of 25 per cent, ad valorem, as printed matter, under the provisions of paragraph 403 of said act (30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1073]).
    This class of merchandise has been the subject of many decisions of the Board, all of which have followed previous rulings rendered under Tariff Act Aug. 27, 1894, e. 349, 28 Stat. 509, and there appears to have been a uniform customs practice extending back for many years, in returning such articles as manufactures of, paper.. The tariff act of 1894 provided a higher rate of duty on “printed matter” than on “manufactures of paper”; and the importers of paper napkins then claimed that such articles were in fact manufactures of paper, and not the printed matter provided for under the then tariff. In G. A.-2,863 (T. D. 15,682) they were held to be printed tissue paper; and in G. A. 3,043 (T. D. 16,019) the Board reversed its previous ruling and sustained the importers in their claim that .Japanese napkins were properly dutiable as manufactures ’ of paper. In the latter ease the importers of record (Morimura Bros.) are the same concern who appear in the case at bar.
    In that case the record was quite extensive, and the processes of the manufacture of such paper napkins were dwelt upon at length, and the importers succeeded in establishing their claim- that the said napkins were manufactures of paper, and not printed matter. The present tariff act provides a higher rate of duty on manufactures of paper than on printed matter; and the same firm now- appears and, reversing its previous position, seeks to prove, the article to be in fact printed matter. .The testimony in the present case, the samples, and the record before us add no new feature to the issue, and succeed in no way-in convincing us that Japanese paper napkins are less manufactures of paper than they were under the previous tariff act. These napkins are completed articles, and adapted for a particular purpose, and to be used ■ as any other ordinary, napkin would be used. The design in colors printed on such articles is merely decorative, and the article, as an article, has its usefulness, irrespective of- the decorative feature. It thus falls directly within the ruling of U. S. v. Hensel (O. O.) 152 Fed. 578, T. D. 27,856, wherein so-called lace-paper tops and doilies, cut or stamped out of sheets of paper and with printed inscriptions thereon, were held to be in fact man-«factures of paper, and not printed matter; the court following and citing the case of Kraut v. U. S. (O. 0.) 134 Fort. 701, T. D. 25,829, affirmed 142 Fed. .1037, 71 O. O. A. 684. T. D. 26,046. According to such authority “printed matter,” in paragraph 403 of the tariff act of 1897, does not include an article or material on which the printing is a subordinate feature.
    This being the case, Japanese paper napkins with designs in colors printed thereon are clearly not included within the provisions for printed matter. That they are is the only claim set up by (he importers in their protest; and the same must therefore be overruled, and the decision of the collector affirmed.
    Kammerlolir & Duffy (John G. Duffy, of counsel), for importers. ' J. Osgood Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PLATT, District Judge.

Decision affirmed.