Case Name: UNITED STATES v. E. J. LAVINO & CO.; SAME v. O. G. HEMPSTEAD & SON; SAME v. J. W. HAMPTON & CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-11-15
Citations: 175 F. 964
Docket Number: Nos. 21-23 (2,020-2,022)
Parties: UNITED STATES v. E. J. LAVINO & CO. SAME v. O. G. HEMPSTEAD & SON. SAME v. J. W. HAMPTON & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 175
Pages: 964–965

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. E. J. LAVINO & CO. SAME v. O. G. HEMPSTEAD & SON. SAME v. J. W. HAMPTON & CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
November 15, 1909.)
Nos. 21-23 (2,020-2,022).
1. Customs Duties (§ 44 ) — Classification — Febsoallotts — Similitude to Ferromanganese.
The alloys, ferrochrome, ferrovanadium, and ferrotungsten, are dutiable by similitude as ferromanganese, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 122, 30 Stat. 159 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1630).
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 44.*]
2. Customs Duties (§ 26*)—Classification—“Unwrougiit Metals.”
The provision in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 188, 30 Stat. 166 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645), for “unwrought metals,” does not include ferroalloys which, though capable of being wrought into different forms and shapes, are not to any extent shown to be imported to be themselves wrought into useful articles, but aie generally used for imparting certain qualities to steel in the process of its manufacture.
[K<1. Note.—For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 26.*
lfor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 8, p. 7221.]
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
For decision below, see 171 Fed. 215, in which the Circuit Court reversed a decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers (G. A. 6,755 [T. D. 28,918]), which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector o f customs at the port of Philadelphia.
D. Frank Dloyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. (James L. Gerry and Charles Fuller, Special Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel, and J. Whitaker Thompson, U. S. Atty.. and Jasper Yeates Brinton, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for tlie United States.
Thomas Learning and William M. Stewart, Jr. (George J. Harding, on the brief), for Lavino & Co. and Hempstead & Son.
Walter Evans Hampton, for Hampton & Co.
Before GRAY and HANNING, Circuit Judges, and J. B. Mc-PHERSON, District Judge.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LANNING, Circuit Judge.
The question presented by these three cases is whether the tariff act of 1897 requires ferrochrome, ferrovanadium, and ferrotungsten to be classified for customs duties with ferromanganese, mentioned in paragraph 122 (Act July 21, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 159 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1636]), or as a "metal unwrought," mentioned in paragraph 183 of the schedule of that act. The Circuit Court disagreed with the Board of General Appraisers, who classified the articles as "metals unwrought" under paragraph 183, and put them with ferromanganese under paragraph 122. The decision of the Circuit Court is in accord with that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., 137 Fed. 770, 70 C. C. A. 346. Plie present attempt of the government to show that, on the facts now presented, a different classification should be made is not convincing. There is some evidence before us that these ferroalloys can be wrought into different shapes and forms by forging and hammering; but it is not shown that such changes are commercially profitable or that the alloys are to any extent imported to be themselves wrought into useful articles. Their well-known general use is for imparting certain qualities to steel in the process of its manufacture. Uniformity of decisions, especially in administering the tariff act, is most desirable. This is shown in the opinion of the Circuit Court rendered in this case and reported in 171 Fed. 245. We agree with that court that the facts in the cases at bar do not warrant a departure from the classification made in the Roessler & ] lasslacher Case.
The decree in each of the three cases is therefore affirmed.
Far oilier eases see same topic & § nlaiber in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Itep'r Indexes