Case Name: UNITED STATES v. CUMMINGS et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-01-02
Citations: 65 F. 495
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. CUMMINGS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 65
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. CUMMINGS et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 2, 1895.)
1. Customs Duties — Tarim Act Oct. 1, 1890 — Waste Composed tn Past of Wool — Classification.
Waste pieces of cloth, composed in part of rubber, cotton, and wool, held to be dutiable as “waste, composed in part of wool,” at 30 per cent, under paragraph 388 of the tariff act of 1890, and not at 10 per cent., as “waste, not specially provided for in this act.”
2. Same.
The fact that the wool therein was not utilized after importation does not affect the classification of the merchandise for duty.
At Law. Appeal by ihe United States from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers.
Board reversed.
The imported merchandise consisted of waste pieces of cloth, left over in the; manufacture of waterproof garments, from which, after importation, the rubber could be extracted and utilized. It could also be used in the manufacture of roofing paper. The collector classified it under paragraph 388 (26 Stat. 595). The importers sought a review by the board of general appraisers. The board sustained their protest, reversed the collector, and decided it was dutiable under paragraph 472. The collector, on behalf of the United States, applied for a review by the United States circuit court, under tlie provisions of section 15 of the act of J une 10, 1890.
Wallace Maefarlane, U. 8. Atty., and Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. 8. Atty.
Jarvis X. Atkinson, for importers.
Cited Cruikshank v. U. S., 8 C. C. A. 171, 174, 59 Fed. 416; U. S. v. Schoverling, 146 U S. 76, 13 Sup. Ct. 24; Combs v. Erhardt, 49 Fed. 635; Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 337, 11 Sup. Ct. 581.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
This importation was of waste pieces of cloth, composed of wool, cotton, and rubber, left over from the manufacture of waterproof garments. The wool cannot be profitably separated from the rubber. It was classified by the board of United States appraisers as "waste, not specially provided for," under paragraph 472 of the tariff act of 1890. But paragraph 388 provided for a duty on noils, shoddy, top waste, stubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, yarn waste, gametted waste, and all other wastes composed wholly or in part of wool. 'This waste is composed in part of wool, and falls within this description. It was none the less composed in part of wool because that part was not profitably available. Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U. S. 233, 9 Sup. Ct. 279. Decision reversed.