Case Name: United States v. Nichols et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1891-05-14
Citations: 46 F. 359
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. Nichols et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 46
Pages: 359–359

Head Matter:
United States v. Nichols et al.
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
May 14, 1891.)
Customs Duties — Adhesive Pelt.
“Pelt, adhesive, for sheathing vessels, ” is among the articles enumerated In “the free list” of the tariff act of 1883, (22 St. 519.) This description is held to cover adhesive felt such as was used at the date of the act for sheathing vessels, although such felt may be imported for other uses. The use of an article does not necessarily control its classification for tariil purposes.
At Law.
Appeal from decision of general appraisers under section 15 of customs act of June 10,1890. The following was the decision of the board of general appraisers, November 15, 1890, from which the appeal was taken by the collector to the circuit court:
“The merchandise was classified as an unenumerated manufactured article, under section 2513, ftev. St., (Act 1883,) and duty was assessed at 20 per cent. Appellants claim free entry as adhesive felt for sheathing vessels, under Tariff Ind. par. 696. The felt in question is in sheets and double sheets, and the appraiser reports that ‘ the article itself is identical in character with that which is usually imported for sheathi ng vessels.’ The appellants do not claim that the felt is intended for sheathing vessels, while the collectorand appraiser state that it is imported for other use. Paragraph 696, Act 1883, places on the free list ‘felt, adhesive, for sheathing vessels.’ It would be impracticable to follow up imported merchandise to its destined uses, and it would be impossible in most cases to penetrate the intentions of manufacturers, shippers, and importers. Nor does the use of an article necessarily control its classification. There is no disagreement as to the fact that the adhesive felt in question is suitable, fit, and of the kind commonly used for sheathing vessels, and it must therefore be classified under paragraph 696, Act March 3, 1883. The entry should be reliquidated accordingly. ”
Frank D. Allen, U. S. Atty., for collector.
J. P. Tucker, for appellees.

Opinion:
Nelson, J.
I think there is nothing whatever in the point raised by the plaintiff in this case. The words "for sheathing vessels," as used in the clause of the tariff act of 1883 referred to, are descriptive of the article intended to be exempted from duty, and the clause is to be construed as if it read: "Adhesive felt, such as is now used for sheathing vessels." Hartranft v. Langfeld, 125 U. S. 129, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 732. That it has been discovered since the act was passed that adhesive felt of this description could bo used for some other purpose than sheathing vessels affords no ground for taking the article out of the free list, when used for the new purpose, and making it dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article, under section 2518 of the tariff act of March 3, 1883.
Upon the facts agreed, the decision of the general appraisers was clearly right, and should be affirmed. Ordered accordingly.