¶1Customs Duties—Classification—Hydrate of Alumina.
¶2The fine powder known as “hydrate of alumina,” and manufactured from the crude mineral known as “bauxite,” is not entitled to free entry, as bauxite, under paragraph 501 of the free list of the act of October 1, 1890, but is dutiable, under paragraph 9, at six-tenths of one cent per pound, as alumina. 62 Ped. 150, affirmed.
¶3Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
¶4This was an application by Thomas Irwin & Sons, importers, for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers reversing the decision of the collector of the port of New York as to the rate of duty on. certain imports. The circuit court re*233versed the decision of the board, and affirmed that of the collector. 62 Fed. 150. The importers appeal.
¶5Stephen G. Clarke, for appellants.
¶6James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States.
¶7Before WALLACE, LAOOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
¶9This appeal from the circuit court involves the question whether the fine powder known as “hydrate of alumina,” and manufactured from the crude mineral known as “bauxite,” should be classified for tariff purposes, under the free list of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as bauxite, or as alumina, under paragraph 9 of tlie same act, and dutiable at six-tenths of one cent per .pound. The opinion of Judge Coxe (62 Fed. 150) states clearly and at length the various reasons which induced him to affirm the decision of the collector, and to hold that the article was not bauxite, but was dutiable under the name of “alumina.” In those reasons we fully concur. While the article, technically speaking, is hydrate of alumina, it sufficiently appears from the testimony taken for use before the circuit court that in common speech the terms “hydrate of alumina” and “alumina” are used as synonymous.
¶10The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.