IN RE HOUDLETTE.
than 'six montbil,;it"is notbat-red either by section 19 of the act
of July, 1866, :or section 4:4 ofthe act of June, 1872, (17 St. at Large,
257, 258.) Judgment must go accordingly.
Massachusetts.' December 12, 1891.)
OtrSTOH8 DUTu:s-t-CL(SSI1!ICATION-SuFFIOmNCY Olr PROTEST.
collector ce$in "sb.ank steel," u.sed in tb.e manufacture of bootl,. and shoes; under paragraph l460fthe tariff act of October 1, 1890,and alsoimposed .. ,'an duty of onc-qUal'ter of a:cent per pound on the goods, as "cold-Tolled" steel, under paragraph 152. The importer protested against .the additional duty, and on appeal the bdardbi' goeneral appraisers held that the original classification' .was wrong, and thaUbegoOds.should have been entered undel.'plJ,ragraph 140, as "other. steel, " etc.. 'l'heyalsofoundthat they were. not sUbject to the additional lllity, but that the' protest was insufficient, because it failed to point out the proper classification. Bela that, as the objection was made only to the additional duty, .ancl"n!?tto,the originl/-l,class!fication, the imp'0rterwas not bqund to point out the errO'ttn tb.e latter, and the protest was sufficIent. . ... .
. . ,. t'
Petition of F. A. Houdlette & Co. to review a decision of the board' of generaJ. appraisersss to the classification of certain imports. Reversed. J. P. 'Pueker, for petitiollers. Henry A."Wyman, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., for collector.
COLT,J.· This is a petition to review a debision of the board of genThe importation in queseralappraisers. Act June 10, 1890, tion is' knt>wnas "shank steel," and in the manufacture of boots and shoes,:' question for review by 'this court is raised under the third assignment of error in the petition, and relates to the sufficiency ' of the protest. It is 'admitted that the subject of importation is steel, in form or shape three to four inchesr wide, fifty to' sixty feet in length, thinner than No. 20 wire gauge; cold rolled,and ..taluedat three cents or less per pound. The collector classified theiD;lport that clause in paragraph 146· of· the net of October 1, 1890, which provides for "steel in aU forms and shapes not specially provided for in this act;" and it being of a vaJ;ue above two and two-tenths cents, and not above three cents, pet pound,: it was held subject to a duty of one and two-tenths cents per pOund. The coHector also imposed an additional duty of one-fourth of Qne cent· per pound, under paragraph 152 of said act,' which provides that on "all iron or steel bars or rods, of whatever shape or section, which are cold rolled, * * * there shall be paid one-fourth of one cent per pound in addition to the rates provided in this act." The importerE! duly protested against the imposition of this additional rate, upon the ground that the import was not steel in "bars or rods," within the commercial or any known understanding or application of these v.48F.no.7-35
P'PQD appeal to the general decided assessment of;()ne and two-tenths<Jents per pound was wrong, and that the article shou:ldhave at one and: threetenths cents per pound, under paragraph 140 of said act, which provides for "other steel" valued at three cents per pound or less, eight inches or less in width, and thinner than No. 20 wire gauge. The board also found as a fact that the merchandise in question was not iron or steel cold hammered, or polished in any bars or rods which are cold way, in addition to the ordinary process of hot rolling or hammering; and therefore they decided that it waS! not subject,to the add.itional duty provided for in paragraph 152 of said act. While the board decided, in favor, of the petitioners, that the import was not subject to the additional' by the coUector, they ,overruled tMprote-ston the of They say, in snbstance, that, the proper paragraph under which their .merchandise should be classed, and'also having erred by claiming that the same was a leSs rate'o(duty than that provided by law. the protest. must be overruled. It does not seelii t6tile 'thl:\t,thfs]il a.. fair The whole scope of the protest was simply an objection to the imposition 'by the; Q(llJ, of the: additional dlltyunder paragraph 152 of the tarjff ctor act. T;be protest says; "Itis the assessmept ofthisone-fourth, of a cent per pound that we object." The petitioners, in their protest" did not undertake to say whether or not thecollectol' ""as right in his pound pnder paragraph 146. assessment of From all that appears, they were content with that assessment. Under Idonot t1;Jipk it was the duty of petitioners to pointollt in their prQtlol&tthat,the I,Q,ercllandise was dutiabJe under paragraph 140, r:,They were <lply seeking to have the additional duty. assessed by the collector 152 cor-, rected,and, this was the 80le t1w ,protest. ,Paragraph 152 is entirely distinct from paragraph 146, and all the petitioners claimed was ,tha.t Pwagraph no appliqation to in questiOIl. I kqoW of no stlltut-e or rule of law, as l!-ppliedto the construeof ,wpichrequjres the impprter, in a protest of this char"; acter, where.t\Jo distinct duties are imposed, and tbe importer objects. to one, out speci,fically the ,parllgraph under which the merchandis,6shouldbe clast;le!l.., 'Iam.of opinio.n that,theprotest was erlydrawJ;l:, and with clearness and aCCl:\racy the contention oftbe iQlporter, and. that it should not have been overruled on the groilnd oLimltl,fficiency. FauchB, 138 U. s. 562, 11 Sup.Ot., Rep. ..thispartj,(lnlar; therefore, ,the decision of the board is re-: versed,aIlP thE! entitled to judgrpent for the difference. between the collecto;r and an assessment ofone anq. pe): poqnd: uIlQ.erparagraph 140. of the act o(Octoberl, and it is so ordered.
·. :m BE .
. . . ·In reSCWLLINGetaL
(mrcuft Oourt, B. D. Net» l'or7c. December 8.
CuJroxa Dt!'rJB8-CLA8snnCATION-"SWJIlBTIIDD CHOCOLATII." . .
"SweEltened chocolate" graph 819 ot the .tariff act of 1891>,
to duty ....manufactured 00008," un4er para-
At Law. Appeal by the collector of customs a(New York from the decision of the general appraieersoonceming certain merchandis, imported by Schilling, Stollwerck & Co. Reversed. Edward Mitchell, for collector. Curie, Smith. &; Mackie, for importers·
.:4AOOMBJ1l, Circuit Judge. "Crude oocoa" is on the (ree-list. "Coooa manufacturad," which is. apparently a very oomprehensive term, is C()Jltainedin paragraph 819·. Cocoa, 8coording to the testimony, ill manufaptured into a substance known as "prepared oocoaj" also into a substance known as "chooolatej" and of chocolate we have information here of two varieties,...-chooolate oonfectionery and sweetened chocolate. As manufactured cocoa, all, these articles-prepared ooooa, chocolate and its. varieties-would be included in. the phrase" oocoa manufactured." "Cocoa prepared" is expressly provided for in paragraph 319. "ChoCQlate confectionery" is expre881y provided for in paragraph 238. "Chocolate" itself1 excepting the confectionery and the sweetened chocolate, is specially provided for in paragraph I find no provision in the tariff act fc;r "sweetened chocolate," except in a parenthetical phrase, where it is excepted in the enumeration of chocolatej and therefore I think it should be classified under" manufactured cocoa," as covered by paragraph 319. The decision of the board of general appraisers is therefore reversed, and the merchandise in this case should be classified by the coUeQtor u cocoaman.tured,(paragraph 819.) and duty imposed