JUNGE fl.
HEDDEN.
197
JUNGE '17. HEDDEN.
«(}ircult Oourt, S. D. NI!:UJ York. January 9, 1889.)
1.
OUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-DENTAL RUBBER.
The article known as "Dental Rubber," lind used for making the plates In which false teeth are set, is dutiable at 25 per cent. ad -oalorem under Schedule N of the tariff act of March 3. 1883.
.. SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF TARIFF ACTS-" ARTICLE. "
The word "article," as used in tariff acts, is not to be restricted to articles put in a condition for final use, but is used in a broad sense, and covers equally things manufactured, things unmanufactured, and things partially manufactured. (Syllabus by the Oourt.)
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. , The plaintiff in 1885 imported into the port of New York certain goods composed of India rubber with an admixture of sulphur and coloring matter, and known as "Dental Rubber," and used for the manufacture of the plates in which false teeth are set. The defendant, as collector of customs, classified them for duty at 25 per cent. ad valorem under the clause in Schedule N of the act of March 3, 1883, imposing that rate of duty upon "rtrticles composed of India rubber, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." Paragraph 454, Tariff Index, new. The plaintiff, by an alternative protest, claimed that the importations were {ree, either actually or by similitude, as "India rubber, crude,and milk of," or that they should pay only 20 per cent. ad valorem as a non-EmU;' merated manufacture by virtue ofsection 2513 of the act of March 3, 1883. The testimony on one side and the other was substantially to the same effect, to-wit, that the articles in question were known in trade and commerce of this country at the time of the passage of tbe act and since as "Dental Rubber," and used exclusively by dentists for the uses above iri. diQated; that tbere was prior to and on March 3, 1883, and has been since, anarticle known in trade and commerce of this country under the name of" Crude Rubber" which is not this article; that crude rubber is put to many uses other than those of dentists; that the importations in question, in tbe condition imported, are ready to go to the dentist for manipulation by bim; that, commercially speakIng, it has been spoiled for any other use; and that any further manipulation or manufacture prior to that applied to it by the dentists wodld unfit it for their purposes. Stephen G. Clarke and Oharles Curie, for plaintiff. Stephen d. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Macgrane Cau, Asst. U. S. Atty. LACOMBE, J., (orally, after stating the facts as above.) Descriptive terms applied to articles of commerce are of course to be understood according to the acceptation giveri to them by commercial men in our own ports at the time of the passage of the act in which they are found. Under the testimony, therefore, these importations are not "crude rubber," or
"milk of rubber," enumerated .on the free list; (paragraph 724 j) and in fact the plaintiff, as I not contend that they are. He claims, however, that under the similitude clause they are to be classified should .thuspass free of duty. In order to entitle them to the provisions of the similitude clause, (section 2499,) they must be non-enumerated; Defendant contends that they ·willbe fo'und· enumerated in paragraph 454:" Articles CbInposedof India rtibber, not speciallYEmturierated or provided for in tl:1i8 act, twenty-five per centum ad It was at this rate that the collector assessed eandcoHected duty. ;If they the provisions ofthig paragraph, . thesiniilitude clause does not apply. Plaintiff contends that the paragraph last q:uotedshould be restricted to manufactured articles, to materials which are put in such con'dition that they are ready for final use. The word with which the paragraph is begull is "articles,?' and this word we find repeatedly used in the. if not in contradistinction to, at least not synonymous ma.nufactures. ll, In the very schedule in which paragraph 454 Appeai:S we find, paragraph 441: "Gutta-percha manufactures, and all ,artiolefil of gutta-percha," and in paragraph 463 we find "all manufact,ures and,articles of leather." ,W,hat, then, does the word "article" mean? 'Is· it to be. restricted to manufactures, to articles put in condition' {or final US6,or ialt not? The ordinary definition of the word "article" is an axtremely comprehensive one.· In the primary meaning, as given in the dictionaries, it designates :one thing of many, one item of several, a portion of complex whole. The best source, however; to which we should apply to determine the definition of a word uSlld in a statute is the statute iti3elf. It is not to be assumed that the same\Vord is used in the statute with two different meanings, unless that is made clearly apparent by, the connection in which the word is used. In section 2500 of the Reviaed Statutes, which is part ofthe tarifflaw, the word "article" is used 81i'1 comprehending agrowth,a product, or a manufacture. Section 2502, ;which duties, begins: "There shall' be levied, collected,and paid upon all articles imported from foreign countries," and then follows !tnenumerati<m from the orudest raw material to the most finished work of human industry. The free list, section 2503, also begins following articles, when imported, shall be free from duty." It seems, then, from the act itself, that the word" articles" is used in a broad sense j Heavers equally things manUfactured, That beingso,:I find nothing in the context of this paragraph to qualify the meaning which is indicated by its use elsewhere in theact,nnd, am of the opinion, therefore, that the ":articlfJS" 'at· the beginnirigof the parag'rap.h, is'sufficiently broad to cover the goods in question, if they are composed of India rubber. there is,an admixture here of sulphur and of coloring matto. a .consid(;lrable exteJ;lt; but it has not changed the character f?Oh,e )tis still rubberjand in view 'olthe fact that the act of former paragraph, as it stood in the Revised Statutes, by:s,trildng ouUhe WO,rd",wlwlly I' between the word "composed" and'
as
ldORRIS 'II" BOBE::tTSON.
199
the words" of I am 'ofthe opiaiollJ that the'articles in suit are fairly within, the enumeration:;of paragtaph454. enumerated, tAey are not within, the operation of the similitude clause. For that reason, I shall direct a verdict for the defendant. Exception to the f ,.
MORRIS 'l1.' ROBERTSON.
(C'ireult
(JOU'1't,
8. D. Nt/IJ) York. November 26, lB88.)
CuS'fOHB DU'l'IES-EXCESS OF Al'l'RAISEMEN'l' OVER ENTRY VALUE-PENALTY.
,
(S1/llabu8 by tke Court.) . .. ,
At "Action to recover back customs duties. ,i, " .In JJIly,1882,. thepJaintiff made an importaticmintp the port ofNew. 'York, as part of which there was a "payked lots of precious stones, which were described upon the invoice 8S follows: (1) 125 k. common cat's-eyes, lot star stones, 2 lots fancy stones, 1 King topaz, 6 King topazes; (2) lot matrix opals;' (3) 6 Labrador heads; (4) 4 lots wood cat's-eyes; (5) 1 ruby; (6) 110 k. spinels; (7) 1131 k. spinels; (8) 51 k. sapphire and (9) 20 t k. sapphires. These goods were classified for duty by the defendant as collector of customs at 10 percent. ad valorem as "precious stones," under the paragraph beginning with those words in Sched'ule M of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes. The correctness of. this classification was not I quaSh tioned. 'Areitppraiserrient was ordered by the collector, on which'it was found tha.tthree of the above nine lots were undetv-alued more tnan 10 percent.; lot '1 being undervalued 14 per cent., andiots 6, and'7 each 20 per cent. The aggregate undervaluation of all the lots taken as a whole wlis but 8 .and2-10 per Cent. On the three lots found to unfiervaiuedmore.than 10 per cent. the defendant, as collector, assessed: an additional duty of 20 pet'cent.'; acting under of secti9.I1. of'th'e Revised Statutes, whereas the :that this additional duty was not properly assessed, for ,the reason that the aggregate undervaluation of the invoice did not amount to 10 per cent. The value, 8s;declared upon the entry; 'was a.lurnp sum,being'thEl'aggreit appears upon. the invoice; and, as compared with··this ,sum, the above stated was' hut 8, and2-l:0 per ,The testimony was uncontradicted that, whereas all the items mentioned in the invoice were nlaced commercially!n the classofipre..i