Case Name: PARK & TILFORD v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-11-09
Citations: 174 F. 831
Docket Number: No. 5,341
Parties: PARK & TILFORD v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 831–832

Head Matter:
PARK & TILFORD v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
November 9, 1909.)
No. 5,341.
1. Customs Duties (§ 17 ) — CuASsiiTOATroK—Bottles wmi Cut Guass Stoppers — Ext [reties.
Filled bottles, with cut glass stoppers, 1he bottle neck and the stopper being ground to fit each other and the stopper not being capable of use in any other bottle, are dutiable as entireties, rather than separately from the stoppers.
' fEd. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties. Dec. Dig. § 17. ]
2. Customs Duties (§ 25 ) — Classification—Glassware.
Glass bottles, fitted, with out glass stoppers that constitute the element of chief value in the whole article, are dutiable as articles in chief value of cut glass, under Tariff Act July 24, 1807, c. 11, § 1, Schedule B, par. 100, 30 Stat. 157 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1033).
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Cent. Dig §§ 43-47; Dee. Dig. § 25. ]
On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
The decision below is reported as G. A. 6,794 (T. D. 29,192).
B. A. Levett, for importers.
D. Frank Lloyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
For other cases see same topic & S xvmbkk in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
MARTIN, District Judge.
The articles in question consist of filled bottles with cut glass stoppers. They were assessed for duty under paragraph 100, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule B, 30 Stat. 157 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1633), relating to articles of cut glass. The importers protested, claiming that only the stoppers should have been so assessed, and that the bottles are properly dutiable under paragraph 99 of said act, relating to bottles of molded glass. The Board of Appraisers held that the bottle and the stopper should be regarded as an entirety for tariff purposes.
The. bottle is blown glass and the stopper cut glass. The neck of the bottle and the stopper are ground to fit each other. The stopper to this bottle cannot be used in any other bottle. The stopper, being of cut glass, is the component of chief value in the entire article. The real question is as to the entirety of the article. It was the same question that was before the court in the Utard Case, 128 Fed. 422, 63 C. C. A. 164, T. D. 25, 115. I regard that decision as controlling in the present case.
The decision of the Board is affirmed.