Case ID: f_166/html/0751-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. LA MANNA, AZEMA & FARNAN.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 10, 1908.)
    No. 166 (4,521).
    Customs Duties (§ 28)— Classification— Dhaokes — '“Coní'kotioneby.”
    Dragees are ‘"confectionery,” within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, .1897, t*. U, § 1, Schedule E, par. 212, 20 Stat. 1(58 (TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1(547).
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 28.*
    For oilier definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 2, p. 1417.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District o£ New York.
    The court lielow reversed, without opinion, a decision of the Board of United States <tenoral Appraisers, which liad affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at tins port of New York. A copy of the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers is contained in the report of the decision below in 154 Fed. 955.
    The merchandise in dispute consisted of dragees, which are small spherical or spheroidal objects, with a sugar coating anil a sweet taste, and which the hoard stated in its opinion are used by bakers for decorating cakes and to some extent by confectioners. The collector assessed duty on the articles under Tariff Act July 21, 1897. e. 11, S 1. schedule E, pur. 212, 20 Si at. 1(58 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 10(7), relating to “sugar candy"’ and “confectionery.” This assessment was affirmed by the board; but the Circuit Court sustained the importers’ contention that the dragees were dutiable under Schedule C, par. 193, 20 Stat. 107 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645).
    D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    Platch & Clute (Walter F. Welch, of counsel), for importers.
    Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       For other casos set' same topic & § ntlmbkb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We concur in the reasoning of the Board of General Appraisers. The decision of the Circuit Court is reversed.