Court Opinion

ID: 8851983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:16:53.788514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:31.748405
License: Public Domain

COXE, District Judge
(orally). I think that the painting in this case is directly within paragraph 758 of the tariff act of 1890. It is not within the proviso of paragraph 759 of the same act, first, because the proof is insufficient to sustain the finding of the board; and second, even if the finding were correct, it would not bring the case within the proviso, because the proviso clearly refers to importations by those engaged in business or connected with business of a private or a commercial character. It is. safe to say that the lawmakers did not intend that provision to cover the case of a painting exhibited by a corporation in the art rooms occupied by a copartnership engaged in selling works of art, even though some members of the copartnership may be connected with the corporation.
The question of protest is more serious. It is, however, purely technical; no one has been misled, and I shall hold the protest good. The reference to a statute not in existence at the time was surplusage and did not relieve the collector from proceeding under existing laws. The protest was- clear and explicit in pointing out the facts and the reason why the importer insisted that the painting should enter free of duty. The decision of the board of appraisers is reversed.