¶1Customs Duties—What Subject to—“Seed”—Millet for Food.
¶2Millet seed, not in its natural state, but peeled, having the outer hull removed, and which will not germinate, used for making soup, and also for bird food, found by the jury not to be a “seed” within the moaning of the tariff act.
¶3Action to Recover hack Customs Duties.
¶4The plaintiffs imported 200 packs of millet seed by the steamer Moravia, December 29, 1884, upon Avhich the defendant, Robertson, collector of customs at the port of Xew York, levied a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem,, under section 2513, Heyl, Imp. D. 837, as an article manufactured in whole or in part, not enumerated or provided for. The plaintiff' protested against this exaction, claiming the merchandise to be free under section 2503, Heyl, Imp. D. 760, Avithin the clause, “Seeds of all *242kinds, except medicinal seeds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act.” The merchandise was shown to he milletseed, hulled, used for bird food, and for cooking, and eating in soups. It was not in its natural state, and, upon trial in a germinator, would not sprout or grow.
¶5Stephen G. Clarice, for plaintiffs.
¶6Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
¶8(charging jury.) The question is whether this article is a seed. The plaintiffs must satisfy you by a fair preponderance of proof that it is a seed. It has the appearance and name of a seed. It is testified, and it is probably true, that it is not in the natural state; that it would not grow if planted; that the germ is destroyed; and that it is used for soups and for food for birds. What has been done to it is not shown by any testimony; what process has been applied to it is not state,d. It is for you to say whether it has been changed from the condition of a seed to something else.
¶9Yerdiet for defendant.