Case Name: LAWRENCE JOHNSON & CO. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-06-01
Citations: 140 F. 116
Docket Number: No. 3,620
Parties: LAWRENCE JOHNSON & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 140
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
LAWRENCE JOHNSON & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
June 1, 1905.)
No. 3,620.
Customs Duties — Classification—Wool on Cabketta Skins — Sheepskins.
Cabretta skins are “sheepskins,” within the meaning of the provision in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 664, 30 Stat. 201 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 108S], relating to raw skins “except sheepskins with the wool on,” and the growth thereon is subject to duty,, as provided in paragraph 360 (Schedule K, § 1, 30 Stat. 183 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1660]), for “wools on the skin.”
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
The decision in question affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on merchandise imported by Lawrence Johnson & Co., and consisting of so-called “cabretta skins.” The growth on these skins was subjected by the collector to the duty provided for “wools on the skin” in paragraph 360, Schedule K, § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, 30 Stat. 183 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1666], and was claimed by the importers to be free of duty under paragraph 664, § 2, Free List of said act, 30 Stat. 201 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1688], reading as follows: “064. Skins of all kinds, raw (except sheepskins with the wool on), and hides not specially provided for in this Act”,
Walden & Webster (Howard T. Walden, of counsel), for importers.
D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge
(orally). This court in another case between these same parties (124 Fed. 1000) affirmed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers holding that certain skins known as "cabretta skins" were properly classified for duty under paragraphs 358 and 360, Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 183 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1666]. I am constrained to follow the decision of Judge Hazel in the case referred to, and therefore the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.