The Washington herald., 1911-04-11
Court of Customs Appeals.

| Present.: Presiding Judge Montgomery and Asso
cate Judges Smith. Barber. and De vies-
| The following decisions were handed down:
| No. lsl. T. X. Malouf & Co, appellants. vs..
United States Opinion By Smith, associate Judge.
An article OF food. prepared from wheat and used
! IIlnciTaily ny Syrlans imported at New York
ana assessed for duty at 70 per cent as a non
Claimed 1t to be dutiable wheat at 5 cents per
oushel. The board Of general appraisers sustained
the collector, and the decision Of the board is al
| hrmed.
No. -. The United States. appellant. vs. Gage
Brothers & Co. Opinion by Smith, associate Judge.
The merchandise silk ribbons and silk fabrics
| imported at Chicago. The amount of duty depended
! upon the weight Of the merchandise. and the i'm
| porter protested that the weights found by the
appraisers were in Of the true weights The
beard Of general appraisers allowed the protest OF
| the importer and the decision Of the board is re-
| versed.
No. ss United States. appellant. vs. United
Cigar Stores Company. Opinion by Smith, associate
Judge.
The merchandise was cigars imported at New
YORK from .he Philippine Islands. The msrrhandls &c
was shipped from Manila to Hongkong in one vessel
| and IN the harbor of Hongkopg WAS transferred to
another vessel and the latter vessel delivered them
at the port Of New York and the question at issue
Is whether that transfer Of the merchandise at
Honssons interrupted their direct shipment. The
lmrorters claimed that il did not and that they
were therefore free Of duty the collector Of Gus
toms. however. ASSESSED them for duty. The board
OF general appraisers allowed the protest Of the
No. 80. L. Sonrebor Srns. incorporated ap-
| peants, The United States
Opinion by DeVries associate Judge.
The merchandise was parafin manufactured in
] and imported from the free zone in Hamburg
! Germany. The board of gtneral appraisers held
| the merchandise TO be dutable under the re-
taliatory clause c paragraph 66 Of the act Of
l'7'' at III" same rate of duty levied by Ger
| many upon similar merchandise imported from the
United Stats. The importers claimed it to be
free Of duty. The decision Of the board is
| affirmed
No. ~. Consolidated Kansas City Smelling and
REFINING Company. appellant. vs.. The United
States.
Opinion by Montgomery. presiding Judge
The merchandise was containing lead and
| zinc. imported at FL Paso from Mexico. DUTY
| was ASSESSED by the oollecto: both lead and
! zinc contained in the orc. and the importer
| claimed that only the lead cuntained should be
| dutisbe. ores imported and snelted
! merely for the lead contained therein. The board
Of general aprraisers sustained the action Of the
| collector. and the decision Of the board is
| affirmed
No. 40. Austin. Nichols & Co. ct al, ap-
| pearts, The United States
Opinion by Barber associate jIdgr.
The question involved is whether the value Of
certain containers should b. included in the
dutiable value Of the merchandise the collector hay-
ing ASSESSED the containers for dnty and the i'm
porter claiming that they free. The board
collector. and the decision Of the board is re-
| rersed.
No al. United States appellant vs. Edward
kimptDn. incorporated.
Opinion IN Barber associate Judge
The merchandise was ink contained in stone
bottles The collector assessed the merchandise
for duty at 3 pr cent. including the value Of
the bottles. the importer claimed hiatt the 10.
ties should be free 1t duty. The board of gen
Cral appraisers allowed the claim Il the i'm
porter and the decision Of thr hoard is affirmed.
No SO United States appellant. Us. George ].
Beirle & Co.
Opinion By De vries. associate Judge
The merchandise was varieties composed Of base
metal set with imitation jet. They ASSESSED
for duty by the collector at 60 per cent jewelry.
the importers claimed that they were dutiabe
as manufactures Of paste IS per cent The board
q general appraisers allowed the claim of the i'm
porter and the decision Of the hoard is affirmed.
No ~. Henry nlge Co., appellants,
United states.
Opinion by DE- Vines associate Judge
The merchandise was silk hat bands imported Al
Philadelphia that enterrd and appraised in the
latter part II November. 1876. In the latter Part
Of the following December the collector called for
reappraisement to which the importers replied
that they had samples. the goods had gone
into consumption, The rezp.raisement therrupon
proceeded upon crrtain socaIIed consular samples"
furnished by the United States consul at Barmen.
Germany. The importer Protested against the re-
apprsiSenent, the hoard Of general appraisers ss-
tanned the rcappraisement and the decision Of the
beard is reversed.
No. l55. 4. d. Shaw & Co. ct al. vs. United
States.
Opinion by De vries associate judge.
The merchandise whisky and other spiritous
liquors. imported at New York from England. Duty
assessed by the collector the statutory rate
the importer protested against this assessment
claiming that the merchandise subject to duty
at the :ate imposed upon like merchandise from
Franco. Germany and other foreign countries which
had reciprocity treaties with the United States.
This claim being made under the mostfavored nation
clause Of the convention of commerce and n1viga-
The board Il general appraisers sustained the col
lector and the decision Of the board IS affirmed.