Case ID: ct-cust_8/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States v. Fenton
    (No. 1845).
    
    Wilton Velvet and Machine-Made Axminster Rugs,
    Following United States v. Carson, Pirie, Scott &. Co. (8 Ct. Oust. Appls., 240; • T. D. 37519), decided concurrently herewith, Wilton velvet and machine-made Axminster rugs of various sizes are not dutiable under paragraph 300, tariff act of 1913 (“Oriental, Berlin, Aubusson, Axminster, and similar rugs”), but, by virtue of paragraph 303, at the rate imposed on velvet carpeting by paragraph 294.
    United States Court of Customs Appeals,
    January 29, 1918.
    Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 40717.
    [Affirmed.]
    
      Bert Hanson, Assistant Attorney General (Charles B. Lawrence and Thomas J. Doherty, special attorneys, of counsel),-for the United States.
    Submitted on record by appellee.
    [Oral argument Oct. 11,1917, by Mr. Lawrence.]
    Before Montgomery, Smith, Barber, De Vries, and Martin, Judges.
    
      
      T. D. 37518 (34 Treas. Dec., 105).
    
   MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

This case involves Wilton velvet rugs and Axminster rugs of various sizes—12 by -9, 10.6 by 9, and 15 by 10—woven on looms. Tbe case differs only from that of United States v. Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., decided herewith, in that there was evidence offered in this case which established the same facts in substance as were stipulated in the companion case, namely, that the Wilton rugs were of the same material as Wilton carpets. An attempt was made by the witness to say that they were not carpeting, we assume upon the ground that they were not to become a part of the carpet as such. The Axminster rugs were of the sizes above stated and are described as Axminster rugs woven-on looms.

The case is not distinguishable from its companion case, and the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.