Case ID: f_116/html/0933-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LACOMBE, Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DANA et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    May 31, 1902.)
    No. 2,915.
    1. Customs Duties—Fekrochrome.
    Ferrochrome is not dutiable under Tariff Act 1897, par. 183, as a metal “unwrought,” it being obtained from chrome ore by a blast furnace process, the same as that by which pig iron is made from iron ore.
    Appeal by Dana & Co. from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers, which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    The following is the opinion of the board of general appraisers:
    The merchandise is ferrochrome. It was assessed for duty as an. unwrought metal at 20 per cent., under paragraph 183 of the act of July, 1897,'' and is claimed to be exempt from duty as chromate of iron or chromic ore, under paragraph 520, or to be dutiable at 10 per cent., under section 6, or at $4 per ton by similitude, under paragraph 122 and section 7. Similar claims were overruled in G. A. 3715, and the collector’s decision in classifying the article at 20 per cent., under section' 3, Act Aug., 1894, was affirmed. This decision was recently reversed by the circuit court for the Southern district of New York in Re Dana & Co., 91 Fed. 522, the court holding that ferrochrome was dutiable, as claimed, at $4 per ton, under paragraph 110, Act 1894, by similitude with ferromanganese. The government has appealed from the decision of the circuit court of appeals, but it is unnecessary to await the final result of that issue for the determination of cases arising under the act of 1897. Paragraph 183 of the act of 1897 enumerates “metals unwrought,” a provision not contained in the act of 1894. We find that ferrochrome is a metal unwrought. Being thus specially enumerated, it cannot be classified by similitude, arid the protests are overruled accordingly.
    W. Wickham Smith, for importers.
    Charles D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge

(orally). The merchandise is ferrochrome. Under the tariff act of 1894, the circuit court of appeals, affirming this court, held that it was dutiable, by similitude to ferromanganese, under paragraph no. It is now contended that under the act of 1897 the similitude clause no longer applies, because the article is enumerated. The board has found such enumeration in the phrase “metals unwrought” in paragraph 183 of the later act. No evidence as to what the merchandise is has been returned, but since it is concededly the same as that which was before the court in the earlier case, reference may be had to the proof then submitted. From that it appears that ferrochrome is manufactured in a blast furnace from chrome ore. The ore and fuel (coke) are packed in alternate strata, and heat applied. It requires a very high temperature to reduce, the process being the same as that of making pig iron from iron ore. Ferrochrome would therefore seem to be a manufacture, and not an “unwrought” article. The decision of the board is reversed.