The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-12
TARIFF LAW CONSTRUED.
Certain Goods Imported from Canada
Must Pay Discriminating Duty.

Certain Goods Imported from Canada
Must Pay Discriminating Duty.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1.-THE attorney
general, in an opinion to the secretary of
tho treasury, rendered to-day, decided that
goods, the production of a foreign country
rot contiguous to the United States, which
are regularly imported into Canada and
afterwards exported to the United States
are subject to the discriminating duty of
10 per cent. provided for in Section - CT
the new tariff act and also that the method
of conveyance, whether by water, rail or
otherwise, is not material. The question
whether goods transported through Canada
to the United States under. consular seal
are subject to the duty has not yet been
determined. The case in point was that of
$4,000 worth of diamonds which were de-
tanned at one of the frontier custom houses
until this question was decided. The dia-
moEds are subject to the. 10 per cent duty.
The opinion is as follows:
I'm your communication of the 9Th inst
you state that recently, since the tariff act
OF July "A, 1891, went into effect, certain
diamonds have been imported into the
United States from the Dominion of Can
ada, foreign country contiguous to the
United States. These diamonds were the
production of foreign country not con-
uguous to the United States, and were
as imported in the usual course of strictly
retail trade. The method of transportation
Of the diamonds from Canada into the
United States, whether by vessel, rail or
otherwise is not stated. After calling at
tention to the provisions of Section p of the
tariff act of July "a 1897, you inquire:
''First-Whether a discriminating duty of
10 per cent. under Section y should be levied
the diamonds described.
Second-Whether, in determining the
liability of the diamonds 10 the discrmi-
mating duty, it is material to ascertain the
mode of conveyance used in transporting
them into the United States from Canada.
Section IA of the tariff act of Aug. rs,
1894, provided discriminating duty of 10
per cent on goods imported in foreign yes
sells, with certain exceptions (the section is
here quoted) Section p Of the tariff act
of July a. 1897 continued the discrimi-
mating duty imposed by Section IA of the
former law, and added a discriminating
duty of 10 per cent. on all goods which,
being the production or manufacture of
any foreign country not contiguous to the
United States, shall come into the United
States from a contiguous country without
being imported in the usual course of strict
ly retail trade (The full text of the sec
ton is here quoted) The former law i'm
posed a discriminating duty only on goods
| imported in certain foreign vessels. The
present law imposes a discriminating duty
also on goods which come into the United
States from a contiguous country, and are
the product of foreign noncontguous
country, and are not imported in the usual
course of strictly retail trade
TT will be observed that the word i'm
ported is not used in connection with
goods which come into the United States
from contiguous country, save in the eX-
ception eXempting goods imported in the
usual course Of strictly retail trade; but
for the purposes of this opinion it is not
necessary to consider the precise effect of
the words come into, as distinguished
from the word imported, if indeed there
be any difference in meaning. In deter
mining whether the goods under consider
alton are subject to the discriminating
duty it is not material to ascertain the
mode of transportation or method of i'm
| pOrtatiOn; il is sufficient TO know that they
come into the United States from a con-
tiguous country, and are within class sub
| iect 10 duty. namely are the production or
manufacture of a foreign country not con-
tiguous to the United States, and are not
imported in the usual course of strictly
retail trade Your first question is. there
fore. answered in the affirmative; your sec
ond in the negative
that the most important question involved
in the Interpretation of Section y is now
under consideration by I. q attorney gen.
eral. This question is whether foreign goods
coming through Canada under consular seal
are subject TO the discriminat ting duty.
These goods it is said. form a large part
of the expectations of tea and other com
way of Vancouver and the Canadian rail
roads TO the cities of the middle West and
Eastern States. The volume Of goods COW
cred by the opinion of the attorney genera
is unimpOrtant as compared with the goods
shipped i'm bond.
Another decision tightens the screws on
tourists Visitors TO the United States in
he future viii find that they will be com
PEELED 10 pay taxes on articles accompany