Case Name: UNITED STATES v. GEORGE LUEDERS & CO.
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1906-07-11
Citations: 148 F. 398
Docket Number: No. 4,082
Parties: UNITED STATES v. GEORGE LUEDERS & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. GEORGE LUEDERS & CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
July 11, 1906.)
No. 4,082.
Customs Duties — Classification—Blood Chap. — Carbon—Similitude.
Blood charcoal a substance which, like bone char, is composed chiefly of carbon, and is used for decolorizing sugar, is not dutiable under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, g 1, Schedule B, par. 97, 30 Stat. 156 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1625], as an article composed of carbon, but either under paragraph 10, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627], as bone char by similitude; or at the similar rate provided in section 6, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693], for unenumerated manufactured articles.
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United ¡States General Appraisers.
The decision below reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York, the action of the Board of General Appraisers therein being taken on the authority of a former ruling, G. A. 6,076, T. D. 26,508, which reads as follows:
Sharretts, General Appraiser. These protests are lodged against the assessment of duty at the rate of 35 per cent, ad valorem under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule B, par. 97, 30 Stat. 156 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1633], on certain merchandise invoiced as bone char and blood charcoal, respectively, which was classified by the collector as carbon and is alternatively claimed by the importers to be dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent, ad valorem under the provisions of section 6, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693], or paragraph 10, Schedule A, § 1, of the present act, 30 Stat. 152 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627]. We find from the testimony adduced at the hearings in the case that the said merchandise is not the ordinary bone char of commerce; it being made from the blood and not the bones of animals.
We further find that it is not commercial carbon. Analysis of the substance in dispute by comparison with genuine bone char gives the following r'esults, namely:
Blood Charcoal. Bone char.
Carbon. 65.39 per cent. 04.23 per cent.
Alumina. 10.44 13.45
Water. 14.80 14.00
In addition to which, and common to each, are small percentages of ferric oxide, silica, magnesia, and lime. It will thus be seen that the separation of bone char and blood charcoal into their constituent elements establishes the fact that they are very similar, if not identical; and, as shown by the record, both are suitable for use in decolorizing sugar.
In addition to blood charcoal and bone char, there are many allotropic forms of carbon, such as the diamond, graphite, wood charcoal, and coal; none of which is classified in trade as carbon. We are therefore of the opinion that the collector's return was erroneous, and reverse his decision in each case, the Board holding the merchandise to be a manufactured article not enumerated in the act; and, although wo incline to the opinion that, inasmuch as blood charcoal is similar in material, quality, texture, and intended purpose of -use, to bone char, by similitude, it is dutiable under paragraph 10, without deciding specifically whether the merchandise falls under section 6 or paragraph 10, we sustain the claim in the protest that it is dutiable under one or the other of these provisions of the tariff act, at 20 per cent, ad valorem.
Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Hatch & Chite (J. Stuart Tompkins, of counsel), for importers.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
On opinion of Board, decision affirmed.