Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/581/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:53:12+00:00

Document:
Chinese goat skins, tanned with the hair on, so that the skin is soft and pliant, should not be classified for the assessment of customs duties as "rugs" under the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488.
The commercial designation of an imported article is not a matter of which courts can take judicial notice, but is a fact to be proved by evidence.
When the court below makes special findings, no exception is necessary to raise the question whether the facts support the judgment.
Shell-covered opera glasses, composed of shell, metal, and glass, imported under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, were subject to be classed as manufactures composed in part of metal under Schedule C, and were dutiable at 45 per cent.
This was an action by the firm of Schlesinger & Mayer against the collector of the port of Chicago to recover duties paid upon certain importations of Chinese goat skins and pearl opera glasses, entered for consumption at the customhouse at Chicago.
The case was tried by the court, without a jury.	The court made a special finding of facts and awarded the plaintiff judgment for $113.60 for excess duties upon the goat skins, and $6.60 upon the opera glasses.
Defendant sued out a writ of error from this Court.
This case involves the proper classification for duties under the Act of March 3, 1883, of Chinese goatskins and pearl opera glasses.
"Carpets, and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton . . . not otherwise herein specified, forty percentum ad valorem, and mats, rugs . . . shall be subjected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets."
"that the goods in question were described in the invoice as 'Chinese goatskins;' that they are tanned with the hair on, so that the skin is soft and pliant, and none of the skins are whole or entire, but that the articles imported are made of pieces of skins, tanned as aforesaid, loosely sewed together, so as to make large parallelogram-shaped pieces about 18 inches wide by 36 to 48 inches long; that they are advertised and sold to some extent for floor rugs, and are sometimes lined and trimmed for sleigh and carriage robes; that they are not always used in the shape imported, but are sometimes cut apart at the seams, or cut into strips and dyed, and used for trimming lap robes, overcoats,"
"carpets and carpetings of wool, flax, or cotton, or parts of either or other material, not otherwise herein specified, forty percentum ad valorem, and mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks, bedsides, and other portions of carpets or carpetings, shall be subjected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets or carpetings of like character or description, and the duty on all other mats not exclusively of vegetable material, screens, hassocks, and rugs, shall be forty percentum ad valorem."
There is no mention here of skins or of hair attached to the skin, and while, if the articles in question were used exclusively or principally as rugs, they might be included within that designation, the fact that they were of the size of small rugs, and were advertised and sold to some extent for that purpose, would not be sufficient if a more specific designation could be found. It not only appears that they were sometimes lined and trimmed for sleigh and carriage robes, but that they were not always used in the shapes imported, and were sometimes cut apart at the seams, and cut into strips and dyed, and used for trimming garments. In fact, their uses were so various that they afford a very unsatisfactory criterion for their classification.
"Leather, bend or belting leather, and Spanish or other sole leather, and leather not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, fifteen percentum ad valorem. "
"Calfskins, tanned, or tanned and dressed, and dressed upper leather of all other kinds, and skins dressed and finished, of all kinds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, and skins of morocco, finished, twenty percentum ad valorem."
"Skins for morocco, tanned, but unfinished, ten percentum ad valorem."
"All manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, thirty percentum ad valorem."
"Leather -- Bend or belting-leather, and Spanish or other sole leather: fifteen percentum ad valorem; calfskins, tanned, or tanned and dressed: twenty-give percentum ad valorem; upper leather of all other kinds, and skins dressed and finished of all kinds, not otherwise provided for: twenty percentum ad valorem; skins for morocco, tanned, but unfinished: ten percentum ad valorem; manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five percentum ad valorem."
"Leather and skins japanned, patent, or enameled: thirty-five percentum ad valorem."
"All leather and skins, tanned, not otherwise provided for: twenty-five percentum ad valorem."
not ordinarily classified as furs -- a term usually reserved for the short, fine hair of certain animals, whose skins are largely used for clothing -- yet in a commercial sense furs have been regarded as including other skins, perhaps more properly designated by the term "peltry," and that within their commercial designation is included the covering of all animals whose skin is used either for warmth or ornament, with the hair on. In this connection, we are cited to the case of Astor v. Union Insurance Co., 7 Cow. 202, in which an "invoice of furs" was described as consisting of bear and raccoon skins, opossum, deer, fine fisher, cross fox, marten, white raccoon, wild cat, wolf, wolverine, panther, and cub skins. In this case, evidence was held to be properly admitted showing that, by the usage of the trade, skins valuable chiefly on account of the fur were called fur, while skins was a term appropriated to those which were valuable chiefly for the skin, by which we understand the skin with the hair removed. Our attention is also called to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which, in treating of the subject of fur, includes within that designation the skins of the bear, buffalo, lamb, lion, tiger, and wolf, although perhaps none of these would fall within the popular definition of furs.
The commercial designation of an article, however, is not a matter of which courts can take judicial notice, but is a fact to be proved like any other -- by evidence. In this case, there is no finding as to the commercial meaning of the word "furs," and no testimony whatever upon the subject, for clearly neither the opinion in the Astor case nor the extract from the encyclopaedia can be considered as legitimate testimony. In short, the case was tried wholly upon the theory that the goatskins in controversy were either "rugs" or "skins dressed and finished." The collector therefore is in no position, as the case is now presented, to ask for a reversal upon this ground; but, as the case must be reversed, upon another ground, both parties will be at liberty, upon a new trial, to introduce testimony upon the question of commercial usage.
glasses, composed of shell, metal, and glass, upon which said merchandise the plaintiffs paid a duty of 45 percent ad valorem, assessed by the defendant collector as "manufactured articles, composed in part of metal," under Schedule C, Act of March 3, 1883; that plaintiffs protested, and appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury, claiming that these opera glasses should be assessed a duty of 25 percent ad valorem, under Schedule N, "Sundries," as "shells, whole or parts of, manufactured, of every description," and under section 2499 as "articles composed of shell, metal, and glass in which the shell is the component of chief value."
"said opera glasses are composed of silver or nickel-plated metal tubes, fitted to slide within each other, and held together by a metal framework or connections, said tubes containing glass lenses properly fitted therein, and that said tubes are enclosed in a cover of polished mother-of-pearl; that the shell, when manufactured or brought to the proper shape for such cover and properly polished, costs more than the glass lenses and metal tubes and frame when finished and ready to be combined with said pearl to make a complete opera glass."
In this connection, our attention is called to the fact that while an exception was taken to the ruling of the court with respect to goatskins, none was taken to its rulings with respect to the opera glasses. This, however, is immaterial, no exception being necessary, in case of special findings by the court, to raise the question whether the facts found support the judgment. St. Louis v. Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, 78 U. S. 428; Tyng v. Grinnell, 92 U. S. 467, 92 U. S. 469; Insurance Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117, 95 U. S. 125; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 120 U. S. 30.
manufactured or brought to the proper shape for such covering and properly polished, costs more than the glass lenses and metal tubes and framework, when finished ready to be combined with said material to make a complete opera glass."
We held this method of computation to be correct in Seeberger v. Hardy, 150 U. S. 420, but the question of the proper classification of the opera glasses was not considered in that case.
"Goods made or mixed materials, cotton, silk, etc., shall pay a duty of thirty-five percent, but if silk is the component part of chief value, they shall pay a duty of fifty percent."
"On all articles manufactured from two or more materials, the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which the component material of chief value may be chargeable, provided that if such articles are composed wholly or in part of metal, they shall be dutiable at forty-five percent."
"manufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act,"
"goods, wares, and merchandise, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value."
"on all articles manufactured from two or more materials the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates of which the component material of chief value may be chargeable."
As the evidence distinctly showed that the paper was the component material of chief value, the albums were held to be assessable as manufactures of paper. In this case, the two clauses were practically the same, one being of "manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be a component part, not specially enumerated," and the other "paper; manufactures of, or of which paper is a component material, not specially enumerated." As the articles were made both of leather and paper, and were assessable with equal propriety under the one clause or the other, the Court called to its aid section 2499, and held the article to be assessable at the highest rates at which the component material of chief value, to-wit, the paper, was chargeable. If there had been in the statute such a provision with regard to articles manufactured wholly or in part of shell as there is with regard to articles manufactured wholly or in part of metal, this case would be decisive, but there is no necessity of relying upon section 2499 to aid us in the interpretation of the clauses in question here.
The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.