Case ID: f_176/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARTIN, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICE & HOCHSTER v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 10. 1909.)
    No. 5,495.
    Customs Dutiks (§ 24) — Classification—Pyroxylin Rons.
    Pyroxylin rods partly finished are dutiable as partly finished “articles” of pyroxylin, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. II, § 1, Schedule A, par. 17, 30 Slat. .152 (IT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628).
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dee. Dig. § 2t.]
    On Application for Review of Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    Kammerlohr & Duffy (John G. Duffy, of counsel), for importers.
    D. Frank Floyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. (Charles D. Fawrence, of counsel), for the United Stales.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic & § ntimeek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   MARTIN, District Judge.

The importation in controversy consists of pyroxylin in the form of rods. It was assessed for duty at the rate of 65 cents per pound and ¿5 per cent, ad valorem under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par. 17, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. .1628). The importers protested, claiming that duty should have been assessed at the rate of only 60 cents per pound under said paragraph.

Paragraph 17 is as follows:

“Collodion and all compounds of pyroxylin, whether known as celluloid or by any other name, fifty cents iter pound; rolled or in sheets, unpolished, and not made up into articles, sixty cents per pound; if in finished or partly finished articles and articles of which collodion or any compound of pyroxylin is the component material of chief value, sixty-five cents per -pound and twenty-five per centum ad valorem.'’

The Board has found as a fact that this was a partly finished product as imported, and therefore held the same to be properly dutiable under the third clause of said paragraph 17. It is a simple question of fact. I have examined the record, and can see no reason why the court should disturb this finding of the Board.

Decision affirmed.