Case Name: UNITED STATES v. ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1904-06-02
Citations: 131 F. 576
Docket Number: No. 3,416
Parties: UNITED STATES v. ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 131
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
June 2, 1904.)
No. 3,416.
1. Customs Duties — Classification—Eerrociirome—Ferrotungsten—FereoMOLYBDENUM — FERBOVANADIUM — FEEBOMAN GANESE — SIMILITUDE — UNwrottght Metals.
Held, that certain alloys of iron and mineral substances known as ferrochrome, ferrotungsten, ferromolybdenum, and ferro vanadium are not dutiable as “metals unwrought,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 183, 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], but are dutiable at the rate applicable to the ferromanganese, enumerated in paragraph 122 of said act (30 Stat. 159 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1636]), which they resemble in quality and use, within the meaning of the so-called similitude clause in section 7 of said act (30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1694]).
Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Charles Fuller, Special Asst. U. S. Atty.
Frederick W. Brooks, for importers.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.
The merchandise in question consisted of ferrochrome, ferrotungsten, ferromolybdenum, and ferrovenadium, and was assessed for duty at the rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem as a "metal unwrought," under the provisions of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 183, 30 Stat. 166 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], The importers protested, claiming that said merchandise was properly dutiable at the rate of $4 per ton, the rate imposed by paragraph 122 of said act (30 Stat. 159 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1636]) on "ferromanganese," etc., by virtue of the similitude clause in section 7 of said act (30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1694]). The Board of Appraisers sustained the protest. Counsel for the United States contends that upon the evidence herein these metals are not wrought, because they are now in the first state in which they appear after reduction from the ore; that is, the first stage in which they appear as pure metals. There is nothing to show that they have been subjected to any process different from that proved on the former hearings in this court. I shall therefore follow the decision of this court in Dana v. U. S. (C. C.) 116 Fed. 933, that they are not metals unwrought. This fact being proved, they fall within the decision in Dana v. U. S. (C. C.) 91 Fed. 522, affirmed in U. S. v. Dana, 99 Fed. 433, 39 C. C. A. 590, that they are similar in quality and use to ferromanganese.
The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.