Case ID: f_56/html/1015-01.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

In re ROSENTHAL et al.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    June 22, 1893.)
    Customs Duties — Pearl Collar Buttons.
    Articles composed of mother-of-pearl, wliicli are known in trade and commerce by tlie specific name of “pearl collar buttons,” and sold at a. stipulated price per line button measure, are not dutiable at the rate of 40 por cent, ad valorem, as manufactures of mother-of-pearl, under the provision for such manufactures contained in paragraph 462 (Schedule N) of the tariff act of October 1, 1800, (26 Stat. 602,) but are dutiable at the rate of 2% cents per line button measure of one-fortieth of one inch per gross, ancl in addition thereto of 25 per cent, ad valorem, as pearl buttons, under the provision for such buttons contained in paragraph 42!) (same schedule) of the same tariff act, (Id. C9£>.)
    At Law. Appeal by Rosenthal and others, importers, from the decision of the board of United states general appraisers.
    Affirmed.
    The firm of ,T. Rosenthal & Go. imported on November 21, 1890, by the Fulda, from a foreign country, into the United States, at the port of New York, certain articles, invoiced as ‘‘pearl collar studs.” These articles were classified for duty as “pearl buttons,” under the provision for “pearl and shell buttons, two and one-half cents per line button measure of one-fortieth of one inch per gross, and in addition thereto twenty-five per centum ad valorem,” contained in paragraph 429 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, (26 Stat. 599,) and duty at the rates specified in this provision was exacted thereon by the collector of customs at that port. Against this classification and this exaction the importers duly protested, claiming that these articles were “studs,” and not “buttons,” and, as they were not otherwise provided for, wore therefore dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent, ad valorem, as “manufactures of mother-of-pearl or as manufactures of shell,” under the provision for “manufactures of ivory, vegetable ivory, mother-of-pearl, and shell, or of which these substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act,” contained in paragraph 462 of the same tariff act, (26 Stat. 602.)
    Upon the receipt of this protest the collector, pursuant to section 14 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, (26 Stat. 137,) transmitted the invoice of these articles, and all the papers and exhibits connected therewith, to a board of three United States general appraisers on duty at that port, to examine and decide the case thus submitted. The board of United States general appraisers took evidence, from which it appeared, among other things, that these articles were made of mother-of-pearl; that they were used to fasten collars to shirts by means of button holes; and that at and prior to the date of the passage of the aforesaid tariff act they were bought and sold in trade and commerce of this country under the specific name of "pearl collar buttons,” the word “collar,” thereof, indicating the use to which they were put; that at those times there were other articles made of mother-of-pearl, and known to such trade and commerce under the specific names of “pearl coat buttons,” “pearl shirt buttons,” “pearl shoe buttons,” etc., the word “coat,” “shirt,” “shoe,” etc., thereof, indicating the uses to which they were respectively put; and that all the above-mentioned articles were then, in such trade and commerce, bought and sold at stipulated prices per line button measure. Tbe board of United States general appraisers, citing the case of Dieekerhoff v. Robertson, 44 Fed. Rep. 160, overruled tbe protest of the importers, and decided that the aforesaid classification and exaction of the collector were correct. The importers being dissatisfied with the decision of the board of United States general appraisers, applied, irarsuant to section 15 of tbe customs administrative act, to the United States circuit court for this district for a review of the questions of law and fact involved therein.
    Curie, Smith.- & Maclde, (W. Wickham Smith, of counsel,) for importers.
    Edward Mitchell, IT. S. Atty., and Thomas G-reenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge,

(orally.) I shall affirm the decision of the board of general appraisers.