The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-05-17
of INTEREST
TO HAWAII
Board of General
Appraisers
Decision.

Materials for ship in Foreign Trade
Materials admitted To free entry un-
| der section or II, train act OF 1924 or
! 1897 respectively, for use In the CON
struCtion or equipment OF vessel en-
/ ployed In the foreign trade do not be
| come dutlable when such vessel makes
] a cuastwise voyage of more than two
! months duration after the materials
| exempted had become worn out, or had
/ ceased to be serviceable or useful for
| the purpose for which they were used.
| Worn out Metal Sheathing-Where 1t
! is shown that the life of imported met
| al sheathng on a vessel, and its er-
| fectiveness does not continue longer
than from two and one-half to three
| years, duties will not accrue ON such
sheathing which has been in use for
\ more than four years at the time the
vessel undertakes a coastwise voyage,
notwithstanding the owner has allowed
| it to remain on the vessel.
! In re Spreckels & Bros. Co., 104 Fed.
Rep. $40 reversing in re Spreckels &
| Bros Co. c. A. 3694), followed
Before the United States General
Appraisers at New York, April %, 1901
In the matter of the protest. 4I019b
of Alexander e. Baldwin, against the
decision of the collector of customs at
Honolulu, Hawaii, as to the rate and
amount of duties chargeable on certain
metal sheathing upon the American
bark Edward May.
Opinion by Somervile. General APP
praiser
The material facts in this case are
as follows: "On April 20, 1885, the own
er of the American bark Edward May
withdrew from bonded warehouse at
New York certain yellow sheathlng
metal, which was placed upon the hull
of said vessel. The merchandise was
accorded the privileges of section Z of
he ~ mt of Nlgh iph c n
far as applicable, as follows:
Section THAT all materials or for
eign production which may be neces
sary for the construction of vessels
built in the United States ror foreign
account and ownership or for the pur-
pose of being employed in the Foreign
trade including the trade between the
Atlantic and Pacific ports of the Unit
ed States, and all such materials nee
essary for the building of their ma
chinery, and all articles necessary for
their outfit and equipment, after the
passage of this Act, may be imported
in bond under such regulations as the
Secretary of the Treasury may pre-
scribe; and upon proof that such ma
terials have been used for such pur-
poses no duties shall be paid thereon.
But vessels receiving the benefit of this
section shall not be allowed to engage
in the coaStwise trade of the United
States more than two months In any
one year except upon the payment to
the United States of the duties of
which a rebate is herein allowed.
Thereafter the vessel was engaged in
the foreign trade for more than four
years on June 81 1900, being then In
the port of Honolulu, Hawaii, she ex-
changed her foreign master for coast
wise enrolment, clearing from Homo
lulu and continuing in the coasting
trade for more than two months in the
year 1900 During all this time the
sheathing remained upon the bark's
hull. On her return to Honolulu the
full duties of the yellow metal in ques-
ton, amounting to $2S4.20, were exact
section - of the act of 1897, which was
then in force, said section IL cores
ponding exactly to section of the act
of 1894. The protest claims that the
collectors action was unauthorized
In the case in re Spreckels & Bros.
Co. QO4 Fed. Rep, s79), reversing
board decision in re Spreckels & Bros.
Co &c. A 3694), the circuit court for
the northern district of California
found upon the testimony of expert
ness of metal sheathing Of this char
acter does not continue longer than
from two and half to three years.
That evidence, as set forth in the opin-
ion of the court, being applicable to
the merchandise before us, Is mace
strongly corroborated by the proofs
which were filed with this protest.
We find accordingly that, at the time
the Edward May undertook her coast
wise voyage, the yellow metal on her
hull was worn out and unht Tor 1ur-
Their use than to be remanufactured.
The Spreckels case cited. supra,
which arose under section s of the tar
if act of 1890, of which sections a of
the act of 1894, and IL of the present
act were re-enactments in more liberal
terms involved precisely the question
now before the board. We quote the
following remarks from the opinion:
1t could hardly have been intended
by Congress to permanently exclude
from the coastwise trade for ten
months in the year vessel built in
the United States because 1t had used
in its construction or equipment, free
of duty some foreign materials, the
use or life of which was of short dura-
ton. The statute specifically provides
that upon proof that such materials
have been used for such purpose (con-
struction or equipmenD no duties shall
be paid thereon" In what way Is this
exemption qualified by the provision
that vessels receiving the benefit OF
this section shall not be allowed to
engage in the coastwise trade of the
United States for more than two
months in any one year except upon
payment of the duties?" Suppose an
imported Manila or wire rope mas been
completely used up on board OF yes
sell must the duties be paid upon such
an article. notwithstanding its destruc-
ton, to secure the privilege or engag-
ing in the coastwise trade for more
than two months in the year, The re-
quirement of duty on imported mate
rial used in the construction and equip
ment of vessel appears to be a rea-
sonable regulation, II the material con-
tinues to exist In a useful condition
But If il Is worn out, and Its life has
gone as a useful or serviceabie arti-
Gle the payment OF the duties does not
appear to be a reasonable requirement
within the spirit and the purpose or
the regulation.