Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 F. 656

Docket No. 4,083.

Johnson v. United States

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided November 13, 1906.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1906-11-13

<p>Customs Duties — Classification—Whetstone Blocks — Crude Minerals.</p> <p>Whetstone blocks, of an approximately rectangular shape, which after being quarried have had their projections removed by a process ot rough dressing, and which are used in that state, held within the provision for “minerals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 614, 60 Stat. 199 [U. S. Oomp. St. 1901, p. 1685.]</p> <p>On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.</p> <p>The case relates to so-called “whetstone blocks” imported at the port of New York. They are nearly rectangular in shape, weighing approximately from 80 to 110 pounds. After being quarried, they were roughly dressed for the purpose of removing their projections; this leaving them with an irregular, uneven surface. The evidence showed that they were used in their imported condition by calico printers for sharpening instruments and grinding the edges of rollers. The Board of General Appraisers held these articles to have been properly classified as unenumerated manufactured articles, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 6, 30 Stat 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693J, overruling the importers’ contention that they should have been classified under section 2, Free last, par. 614, 30 Stat. 199 [TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685], which reads as follows: “614. Hiñerais, crude or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture, not specially provided for in this act.” The board observed in its opinion: “The claim under paragraph 614 we think not well taken. In our judgment this paragraph was not intended to cover articles of this character; besides, the evidence shows that the stones in question have beoñ advanced in condition by some process of manufacture. In other words, the pieces as imported are not in the exact condition in which they came from the quarry.”</p>

2 counsel of record

Decided 1906-11-13

¶1Customs Duties — Classification—Whetstone Blocks — Crude Minerals.

¶2Whetstone blocks, of an approximately rectangular shape, which after being quarried have had their projections removed by a process ot rough dressing, and which are used in that state, held within the provision for “minerals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by refining or *657grinding, or by other process of manufacture,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 614, 60 Stat. 199 [U. S. Oomp. St. 1901, p. 1685.]

¶3On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.

¶4The case relates to so-called “whetstone blocks” imported at the port of New York. They are nearly rectangular in shape, weighing approximately from 80 to 110 pounds. After being quarried, they were roughly dressed for the purpose of removing their projections; this leaving them with an irregular, uneven surface. The evidence showed that they were used in their imported condition by calico printers for sharpening instruments and grinding the edges of rollers. The Board of General Appraisers held these articles to have been properly classified as unenumerated manufactured articles, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 6, 30 Stat 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693J, overruling the importers’ contention that they should have been classified under section 2, Free last, par. 614, 30 Stat. 199 [TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685], which reads as follows: “614. Hiñerais, crude or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture, not specially provided for in this act.” The board observed in its opinion: “The claim under paragraph 614 we think not well taken. In our judgment this paragraph was not intended to cover articles of this character; besides, the evidence shows that the stones in question have beoñ advanced in condition by some process of manufacture. In other words, the pieces as imported are not in the exact condition in which they came from the quarry.”

¶5Hatch & Clute (Walter F. Welch, of counsel), for importers.

¶6D. Frank Floyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

¶7HAZFF, District Judge.

¶8Decision reversed.

/152/f1d/656 · .json · Public domain