178 F.1d 273 - Silz v. United States — 178 F. 273

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1976

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Customs Duties (§ 30*) — Classification—‘‘Poultry’’—Turkeys—Guinea Fowl — “Birds and Land Fowls.”

¶2Guinea fowl and turkeys, that are not shown to be in fact wild birds, are more appropriately classified as “poultry,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897. c. 11, § 1, Schedule G. par. 278. 30 Stat. 172 (TT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1052), rather than as “birds and land ⅜ ⅜ * fowls” under section 2, Free List, par. 494, 30 Stat. I'.Ki (IT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1081).

¶3[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dee. Dig. § 30.*

¶4For other definitions, see Words and Mirases, vol. 6, p. 5470; vol. 1, p. 803.]

¶5Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

¶6For decision below, see 167 Fed. 686.

¶7The Circuit Court affirmed decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importations in controversy consisted of turkeys and guinea fowl. The importers contended that they had been improperly classified as “poultry,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 278, 30 Stat. 172 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1652), on the ground that they were within the provision for “birds and land … fowls,” in section 2, Free List, par. 494, 30 Stat. 196 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1681).

¶8D. Macon Webster, for appellant.

¶9D. Frank Lloyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

¶10Before LACOMBF and WARD, Circuit Judges, and ADAMS, District Judge.

¶12PKR CURT AM.

¶13We think there was not sufficient evidence to establish the proposition that the particular turkeys and guinea fowl imported were in fact wild birds. It may be that enough can be shown as to conditions in Italy, the country from which they come, to warrant such conclusion; but on the record here the decision is affirmed.