Case ID: f_147/html/0774-01.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

JULIUS LOEWENTHAL & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    January 30, 1906.)
    No. 3,742.
    Customs Duties — Classification—Crocheted Goods — Lace—Trimmings.
    So-called “crochet yokes.” made by knitting or crocheting, and used in the yoke of women’s vests, are not trimmings or lace within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 339, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1662].
    On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    The decision in question affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York, who classified the articles in controversy as “cotton trimmings,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 339, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1662]. The board described the goods as consisting of “so-called crochet yokes, the same being in fact knitted or crocheted cotton lace articles about fourteen inches in length and one inch in width, said to be used by being sewn on the neck or yoke of women’s vests”; and the board ruled that, “inasmuch as they are ‘lace articles,’ they are dutiable under paragraph 339, whether they be used as trimmings or as ornaments.” In this court further evidence was introduced on behalf of the importers, consisting of the testimony of a dealer in lace goods, who testified that he would not regard the articles in question as coming within the category of laces or imitation laces.
    Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for importers.
    Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The articles in question, consisting of crochet yokes, are ornaments, and not trimmings. The evidence taken in this court sustains the contention of the importer. The case of Garrison, Wright & Co. v. U. S. (C. C.) 121 Fed. 149, would seem decisive of the propositions argued at the hearing. It follows that the merchandise is dutiable at 45 per cent, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 322, 30 Stat. 179 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1661], and not as trimmings as returned by the appraiser, nor as laces as found by the board.

So ordered.