Case Name: MORRIS v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1903-06-05
Citations: 140 F. 774
Docket Number: No. 3,182
Parties: MORRIS v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 140
Pages: 774–774

Head Matter:
MORRIS v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
June 5, 1903.)
No. 3,182.
Customs Duties — Classification—Steel Plates — Form or Shape of Steel.
A so-called steel table, engraved, weighing nearly six tons, measuring 12 feet by 4 feet by 6 inches, and mounted like a table top on a frame, held to be within the provision in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 135, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1638], for “plates and steel in all forms and shapes.”
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
The decision below affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on merchandise imported by Theodore W. Morris & Co. Note G. A. 4,650 (T. D. 21,975); U. S. v. Binney, 82 Fed. 992, 27 C. C. A. 347; Buehne v. U. S. (C. C.) 140 Fed. 772.
The article in controversy consisted of a so-called steel table, engraved, measuring about 12 feet by 4 feet by 6 inches, weighing 11,816 pounds, and mounted like a table top on a frame which is moved on wheels. It is used in the manufacture of plate glass to straighten the plates after being rolled; the engraved design being imparted to the glass during the process. The Board affirmed the action of the collector in classifying the merchandise as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 193, Schedule O, § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645), against the importers’ contention that it should have been classified under the provision in paragraph Í35, Schedule O. § 1, c. 11, 30 Stat. 161 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638), for “plates and steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for.”
Jacob Fromme, for the importers.
D. F. Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
HAZEL, District Judge.
The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.