Case Name: United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-11-19
Citations: 6 Ct. Cust. 376
Docket Number: No. 1559
Parties: United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Judges: Before Montgomery, Smith, Barber, De Vries, and Martin, Judges.
Reporter: Court of Customs Appeals reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
(No. 1559).
1. Water Colors in Lacquered Tin Boses.
No controversy being made here, the board’s decision that there was no proof to controvert the collector’s classification of these articles affirmed.
2. Mirror Puzzles — Tots—Insufficient Evidence.
The importation, invoiced as mirror puzzles, was classified by the collector as toys under paragraph 342, tariff act of 1913. A sample of the goods was the only evidence introduced by protestants before the board. Held, insufficient to warrant reversal of the collector’s decision.
United States Court of Customs Appeals,
November 19, 1915.
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37311.
[Affirmed in part; reversed in part.]
Bert Hansen, Assistant Attorney General (Edward W. Fox, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.
No appearance for appellee.
Before Montgomery, Smith, Barber, De Vries, and Martin, Judges.
Reported in T. D. 35919 (29 Treas. Dec., 580).

Opinion:
De Vries, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The importation was of (1) water colors in lacquered tin boxes and (2) small circular mirrors with ball puzzles in reverse in tin frames about 2¿ inches in diameter invoiced as " mirror puzzles." There is no controversy made here as to the former, and accordingly the board's decision that there was no proof below to controvert the collector's return is affirmed. The mirror puzzles were classified by the collector as toys under paragraph 342 of the tariff act of 1913. The appraiser had reported in answer to the protest that "the merchandise consisted of small circular mirrors with a ball puzzle on reverse side, designed for the amusement of children." On the hearing before the board no testimony was offered in rebuttal by the protestant, who contented himself with introducing a sample, which is before the court, and stating the invoice designation as " mirror puzzles."
We do not think the record affords sufficient evidence warranting a reversal of the decision of the collector. The decision of the board is therefore reversed.