UNITED STATES V. E. L. GOODSELL CO.
et al. v.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 18, 1899.) No. 2,690.
CUSTOMS DUTIES-VALUATION -INTERNAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.
Internal transportation charges for getting the goods from the place manufacture to the place of shipment, even if not dutiable elements of market value, become a part of the entered value when they are included in the entry as a part of the market value because that was thought to be the best way, without indicating that such Inclusion was objected to. In such case the charges form an Indisputable part of the entered value, which the collector cannot reduce.
This was an application by Vantine & Co. for a review of a deoision by the board of general appraisers in respect to the duty on certain goods imported by them. Edward Hartley, for appellants. Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty. WHEELER, District Judge. These internal transportation charges for getting the goods from the place of manufacture to the place of shipment may not be dutiable elements of market value; but they appearto have been included in the entry as a part of that value because that was thought to be the best way, in view of former proceedings, without indicating in any way that now they were objected to. They appear to so have become an undisputed part of the entered value, which the collector could not reduce. That distinguishes this case from Robertson v. Frank, 132 U. S. 17, 10 Sup. Ct. 5, where the transportation charges were inserted in the entry as being required by the appraiser, and the jury found that this was done by compulsion in making that entry, and not because that was thought, in the language of the charge, to be the best way. Decision affirmed.·
E. L. GOODSELL CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 5, 1899.) No. 34.
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-OUANGE BOXES-REIMPORTED.
Boxes containing oranges and lemons, the sides, tops, and bottoms of which are in fact of American growth and manufacture, and which were exported as shooks, cannot be deprived of the benefit of the proviso to paragraph 216 of the tariff act of 1894, under which they are entitled to re-entry, when filled, on payment of half-rate duties, merely because proof of such facts is not made in the particular mode prescribed by the treasury regulations.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The cause comes here upon appeal from the decision of the circuit court, Southern district of New York (84 Fed. 155), affirming decision of the board of general appraisers which reversed decision of the collector of the port of New York touching classification for duty of certain boxes containing oranges
· . 91 FEDEllAL REPORTEll.
and lemons. The question presented arises under paragraph 216 of the tarlfr act of 1894, which a duty on oranges 81ld: lemo;lS, and In addition thereto a duty of 30 per cent. upon the boxes or barrels containing them, "provided, that the thin wood so-called comprising the sides, tops and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes, of the growth and manufacture of the United States, exported as orange or lemon box Shooks, may be relmported In completed forW.fllled with oranges and lemons, by the payment of duty at onehale the rl;l,te imposel;l on Similar boxes of entirely foreign growth and manufacturll." .. tl'he collector assess.ed. the Importation In suit for duty at 30 per origin and exportation as shooks had not cent., .1wcl).Uile prOOf as to beeIim!\.de 1,11 tbe. manner pl,'eilCrlbeilln. treasury circular No 155, of July 15, .,. The importer thattbe boxes were In fact of Amel'ican growth and had been exported as shooks.
D. Frank Lloyd, for the United States.
Comstock, for LAQ9MBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. The appellant contends that the record discloses no proof that the articles were of American growtb,and. none that they had been exported as shooks. The board of appraisers report that growth. and exportaUo;n. ,were "uncontroverted. facts," and it is quite apparent that the pOJnt now contended for was.not raised before the ·. In,view of tha,t.. circumstance,andot.tb.e letter from the to th.ecollector, directing all appeal of this cause solelytQ li;ecure a ruling as to the effect of the circular of July 15, 1895, it may be. assullled that wJ;1a.tever defect there may bave been in the prQof presented to the board was waived by the government, and is Jiot now available to the appellant. We concur with the, circuit court and tne.board of appraisers that boxes which are infact of American lJlaDu:(acture, and which were exported as. shooks, cannot I;>e req'9ire4 to pay higher rate of duty merely because the importers I;lavenqFilla.deproof of those factsin SOllle particular mode prescribed by the secretary of. the trejlsury. It seems unnecessary to add anything to the careful and exhaustive opinion filed by the board of general appraisers. Decision affirmed.
KLIPSTEIN et at v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Coul-t, S. D. New York. January 18, 1899.) No. 2,572.
CuSTOMS DUTIES-CLASflIFICATION--COAL-TAR DYES.
Where the weight of the evidence Is that the product In question is a coal-tar color or dye, a finding by the board of general appraisers that it is dutiable as such, and not as an alizarin color, will be sustained, though the fact that it is used with a mordant may raise a doubt whether lils not properly an alizarin.
This was an application by Klipstein & Co. for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to tbe classification for duty of certain colors or dyes imported by them. Edward Hartley, for appellants. James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.