STEPHENSON ". COOPER.
are dutiable thereunder. This construction has the additional merit of rendering the duty on opera-glasses uniform, whereas the other view renders the duty variable, without any reason being shown why congress may be presumed to have intended that the duty should be variable. Judgment will be entered for defendant.
STEPHENSON ". COOPER, Collector.I
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. PennB'IIlvania. October 7, 1890.)
CusTOMS DUTIES-SKEINING WORSTBD-ApP1U.ISAL.
Under section 7 of Act MarCil 8, ISSS, referring to section 2007, Rev. St., if worsted or mohair yarns is necessary to render them merchantable yarn!'l' the cost of skeining is a part of the value of the goods, and subject to duty. u skeining is necessary only for convenience in transportation from the producer to the consumer, it is a charge for putting up, preparing, and packing for sllipment, and the extra cost of skeining 11 not to be added to the other costs in computing the duty. ,
At Law. Plaintiff sought to recover the duty upon the cost of winding worsted and mohair yarns into skeins. Rev. St. § 2907, provides that "in deter-' mining the dutiable value of merchandise therE! shall be added to the cost or to the actual wholesale price or general market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country whence the same is imported into the United States, * * * all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for shipment." In section 7 (Act March 3, 1883) it was expressly stated that the above-mentioned charges should no longer be added in determining the value. In plaintiff's invoice the cost of skeining, together. with the cost of hanking, bundling, packing, paper, and string, were deducted. These latter were allowed, but the cost of skeining was restored by the appraiser, on the ground that skeining was part of the finishing process, and necessary to put the yarn on the market. Upon trial the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses was to the effect that the skeining process, like the hanking and bundling processes, was merely for the purposes of transportation from the manufacturer to the consumer, and was part of the actual and usual charges for "putting up, preparing, and packing for shipment" of the article mentioned in the provisions of Rev. St. § 2907. The testimony of witnesses on behalf of the government was to the effect that yarn was not in a merchantable condition when it was upon the bobbin or cops, but only after it had been skeined, hanked, and bundled. Verdict for plaintiff. Frank P. Prichard, for plaintiff. William WilkinB (hn', Asst. U. S. Atty, and Johtn R. Read, U. S. Atty., for defendant.
,'Reported by Mark WUka Collet, Esq., of the Philade1phia_
orally.) At the time this merchandise importEllll int6' the' country by the plaintiff the statute ipiforce,iinposing duties'upGlIllmported goods, confined them to the value of the goods, excluding ftomthe tltxation or duty any cost of preparing them for transportation, either across the country abroad,or across the ocean-to this country. I repeat, it excluded from taxation or duty any cost incurred for putting up. preparing, and boxing the goods for carriage either abroad or across the ocean. 'rhe value of the goods, which were subject to the import duty, was the value of the goods in the market as a merchantable article ofcomnlerce. Whatever was necessary to render the goods merchantable, in other words, adaptable to the uses for which they were designed, w!lsapart of the value of the goods, and was subject to taxation. When these goods reached the custom-house, the imthe cost of skehiing (taking the yarn. from the bobporter skeins) was a part of the cost of putting up and bins .goods for transportation, and that therefore this cost should preparing be deducted from the value of the goods and be excluded in ascertain'ing the duty. . lInswered that the cost ofputting the goods in this shape is a part of the cost of rendering them merchantable, of preparing them for the uses of manufacture, and that it was, therefore, properly a part. of the price or value oUhe goods, and consequently a duty upon the price of the goods in this condition. TlleplAiJlHtf pald .the rluty and brought this suit to recover it back. The question for your consideration is whether or not the skeining of the yarn was necessary only for. convenience of transportation. If it was necessary alone for this purpose, then it is not to be reckoned a part of the price or, value of the yarn itself, but as the cost of putting it up for purposes ofrtransportation; and in that view, the government was wrong insubjectingJt to duty. In such case the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict for·the amount claimed. If, on the other hand, the skeining was necessary to render the yarn a merchantable article, in other worus, if it was necessary to render the yarneuitlj.ble for the purpose of manufacture, fOl':which it was intended, then it is a part of the value or cost of the yarn, and is subject to duty. In that view. your verdict would be for the defendant, the government. It is clear that wool may be twisted into thread. and not be merchantablp, yarn. If the spinner, instead of winding it upon bobbins, should allow it to fall into confusion upon the floor, it would be. yarn, but it would not be merchantable yarn in man__yarn in a merchantable sense; it would not be suitable for ufacture; it would be tangled and snarled, and virtually valueless. You can ,take a thread and say I "this is yarn," and it iiltrue in one sense, but it is not yarn in a me.rcantile sense. The thread thus in confusion and tangle upon the floor, would at least have to be turned into a bobbin beJore it would be fitted for use. The question is whether it is llecesflary,tQ go further to render it adapUlble. to the uses for which it is intended, by turning it into skeins. That is the only question before you. You have heard the testimony and the comments of counsel upon it. If you believe from this testimony that it is necessary to render yam a
MEYER ". COOPER.
merchantable article, adapted to 'tneuses, for which it is designed,' the uses of manufacture, that it shall not only be made into bobbins but 'shall also be turned into skeins, the defendant is entitled to your verdict. If, on the other hand, the yarn is a completed article, fitted to the pur,. poses for which it is designed, in the bobbin, and that the skeining is Qnly necessary for convenience in transportation, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, for the amount of his claim. A new trial was granted, as the verdict was against the evidence.
MEYER 11. COOPER,
(Oircutt Court, E. D. Penn8'l/wanf.a. October 8, 1890.) 1.
CuSTOMS DUTIB8-CBnu.-WARB.....D11TT ON WRA.PPERS.
Cheap cups and saucers were imported in paper boxes, closed by brass ClaspI, each box containing only a single pair, wrapped in tissue paper. He'ld, 'under United States statute, finding that tlie co ..ver.iugs o.n impOrted. goods designed for use other than in the bonajUte transportation of the goods shall pay a duty, if said coverings were intended for use iu transportation only, and for no other use; and were n(lt intended to enhance the value, increase the sale, or facilitate the,ilillling, they were free; otherwise, they were subject to duty. '", ,.' , Austrian fiorins are to berecel.ved by the custom house at the rate 1ixed'by'ihe United States mint,; " , .
. '. '. ,.' ' .·. ,. .
BAME-PA.YMBNT IN FORBIGN MONlilTS.
At Law. , ,,',' . This suit was brought to ,recover back duties lIpon certain and paper, boxes in, which ,cups and saucers were imported.' 'rhe invoice described' the articles as decorated china-ware. They were e1).ter.ed under the name, and duty paid thereon. The appraiser returrte"U\le coverings as" unusual" coverings, and subject to duty of 100 per cent. ad valorem. These coverings consisted of boxes, closed by a brass clasp, containing a single cup and saucer of inferior grade; and tissue paper surrounding the china. The testimony as to the usual and necessary erings for china of that grade was conflicting. The plaintiff also, sued to recover the excess of duty paid by the valuation of Austrian florins at a different rate from the valuation fixed by the United States mint. To this the government offered no defense. The verdict was for defendant for the coverings and for plaintiffJor the florins. Prank P. Prichard, for the plaintiff. W. WilkinaCarr, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John R. Read, U. S. Atty., ,for defendant.
BUTLER, J., (charging jury oraUy.) There is not very much money involved in this case, but, inasmuch as it arises outof the admillistrationoof the tariff laws, it is important that it shall receive deliberate andcar!3fu1 _consideratlon; because,if it is IlOt properly deCided, it will llDcertainty The case, is very readily understood, and not difficult to decide. Upon ,the,