Case Name: HENSEL et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1899-01-18
Citations: 91 F. 523
Docket Number: No. 2,740
Parties: HENSEL et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 91
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
HENSEL et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 18, 1899.)
No. 2,740.
Customs Duties—Classification— Picture Frames.
Picture frames of wood, fitted to the pictures, are incidents of the pictures, and dutiable at the same rate, as part of their value, and not separately, as manufactures of wood.
This was an appeal by Hensel and others from the decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of certain picture frames attached to pictures which were imported by them.
Howard T. Walden, for appellants.
Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
These are "frames attached to" pictures, assessed as manufactures of wood, at 35 per cent., instead of at 20 per cent., with the pictures, as a part of their value, or at the same rate as cases for them. Section 19 of the customs administrative act of 1890 provides that duties shall be assessed upon the market value of merchandise in the condition in which it is bought and sold for ex portation'to this country, "including the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks and coverings of any kind." Picture frames are fitted to the pictures for their protection in handling, and for holding them jn place. They would seem to be incidents of the pictures to which they are attached, and dutiable at the same rate, as a part of their value, and also to fall within the description of a case "of any kind" for them in said section 19. In either case the rate of duty would be the same. In U. S. v. Gunther, 71 Fed. 499, the frame was itself an object of ancient art, and was in question on a claim that it was one of a collection of antiquities of which the picture was another; and it would have been quite "unusual," within the exception of this section 19. That case does not seem to be controlling here, where the frames are merely such, and usual. Decision reversed.