The Washington herald., 1911-01-12

Aomfnt41l1t1On. At1OfneJ. d. u. f1nckefSteln
Estae of Joseph /. Smith; petition for letters a
administration. Attorney. Morris Bier.
Estate Of Mary Z. Davidson; caveat. Attorney.
W. C. Balderstcn.
U! s. Court Of Customs Appeals.
The following decisions were handed down to-day:
No. 1e John L. vandivcr The United States:
opinion by Hunt. associate judsr. The merchandise
consisted Of certain boaes assessed by the COLLECTOR
as smokers articles At 60 per cont I'D valoFem- ThO
importer claimed that they were manufactures oe
CHINA. glass; leather. Or wood. dutiable at 8 Or -
per cent. The board of general appraisers allowed
the importess' claim to exhibits g. g. 10 and Il.
and sustained the collector to the remainder.
me decision Of the board is affirmed except that
No. .. The United States appellant vs. Wells
Fargo Co: opinion BY De VIes, associate judge.
Ihe mefchandise was fhodium. imported at New
York and assessed for duty q crude metallic
mineral substance at % per cent ad valoren. The
importer claimed that it was q platiDa metal and
entitled to entry free Of duty The board Of general
appsaisls overruled the collector and allowed the
claim q the importer. The decision of the board 10
reversed.
No. q Maenus. Mabee Reynard. appellant. ~
Tho United States; opinion By De vnes associate
ported at New York and assessed By tho COLLECTOR
at 8 per cent ad alorem a chemical compound
not specially provided for. The importer claimed
that it was a coal tar Eepar.tion dutiabe at .
per cat. The board 0 general appraisers sus-
taned the collector. and the decision Of the board
il affirmed.
No. a Guthman. solomoss & Co. appellant vs..
The United States: opinion By De Vnes, associate
jadee. The Merchandise hair rolls, commonly
called rats" They assessed by the collector
for duty a. wearing apparel at Ac per pound ana
60 per cent ad val0rem The importer claimed that
they were manufactures Of metal at Is FER cent.
The board Of general appraisers sustained the col
lector. and the decision Of the hoard is affirmed.
No. s.. s. s. Pierce Company. appellants. vs.
gfad hxv IL
judge. The merchandise was 1pers They were as
seDed for duty by the collector at Boston sauce
At 70 per cent. The importer claimed that they
Hcrc either drug Or an unenumerated article and
free or dutiable at 10 or 70 per cent The
board Of general appraisers and the United States
Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, sls-
taned the collector The decisions Of the board and
court reversed. and finds merchandise tutiabo
Nc. ZIG The United States. appellant. vs. Gross
field & Roe Company: opinion by Barber. associate
at Noeales Ariz. The date Of entry was such a.
to cause . question to whether it dutiablo
under the act Of 1887 at 3c per bushel or under
the act Of 1919 at &c per bcshe. The collector as
seed duty the higher rate. The board of general
appraisers decided that part OF the merchandise vas
dutiabs under the act Of 1857 and part under the
act q 1903. The decision of the board is modified
and all Of the merchandise is held dutiaHe at ths
lower rate.
No. 81 ]. Kru.i. appellant. vs.. The United
States opinion by Smith. associate judge. Tho
merc1anOlSc was lOr WOuitu
They were assessed for duty by the Collector at
New York silk wearing apparel at 60 per 6nt
The importer claimed that they were manufactures
Of silk at 20 per cent manufactures of cotton at
Is pr cent. The beard Of general APPRAISERS sls-
tanned the collector and the decision Of the boari
is affirmed.
No. u6. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne. appellant. va
The United States; opinion By Smith. associate
Judge. The merchandise was woven fabrics OF six
and cotton. They assessed for duty BY the
collector at New York at S per pound The i'm
porter claimed that they were dutiabae as Jacquard
figured goods at 50 per cent. The board Of general
appraisers sustained the collector, and the decision
of the board is reversed.
! No. It's. Julius c. Wolff Co., appellant. ~
Tho United States; opinion by Smith. associate
judse. The merchandise Chinese mating i'm
ported at New Orleans. The appraiser at that pore
advanced the goods &C per square yard over tho
value named in the invoice. The board Of general
appraisers sustained the local appz.iser. and the
decision Of the board is affirmed
Nos 81 and 81 Dunlop Ward, appellant, vs.
The United States Dismissed upon Stipulation q
counsel.