Buehne v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Buehne v. United States

140 F. 772, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 1, 1905

DocketNos. 3,924, 3,915

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 F. 772 (Buehne v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buehne v. United States, 140 F. 772, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise consists of what is known as “steel wool.” The collector classified it for duty, under paragraph 193 of the act of 1897 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 167 [ U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645]), as a “nonenumerated article manufactured of steel.” The Board reversed the classification of the collector and assessed it under paragraph 135 of said act, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638], providing for “steel in all forms and shapes, not specially provided for.” The importers claimed that it should have been assessed under paragraph 137, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639], as an article “manufactured from round steel wire, not specially provided for.”

Paragraph 137 fixes various rates of duty for round iron and steel wire of various sizes, respectively, “provided that articles manufactured from * * * steel wire * * * shall pay the rate of duty imposed upon the wire used in the manufacture of such articles,” and. certain additional duties. This article is not round steel wire. It is only manufactured from steel wire in the sense that wires are cut up in order to make this product; such cutting process resulting in the destruction of the wire. It would be impracticable for the customs authorities to determine by inspection or analysis the gauge of the wire from which the steel wool was manufactured. It would seem that said proviso was not intended to apply to articles of this character, and the protest of the importers is, therefore, overruled.

The government bases its contention on the ground that paragraph 193 is more specific than paragraph 135. I think this question has already been disposed of, however, in United States v. Binney, 82 Fed. 992, 27 C. C. A. 347, and in Boker v. United States, 97 Fed. 205, 38 C. C. A. 114.

Under these circumstances, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The merchandise consists of what is known as “steel wool.” The collector classified it for duty, under paragraph 193 of the act of 1897 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 167 [ U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645]), as a “nonenumerated article manufactured of steel.” The Board reversed the classification of the collector and assessed it under paragraph 135 of said act, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638], providing for “steel in all forms and shapes, not specially provided for.” The importers claimed that it should have been assessed under paragraph 137, 30 Stat. 161 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1639], as an article “manufactured from round steel wire, not specially provided for.”

Paragraph 137 fixes various rates of duty for round iron and steel wire of various sizes, respectively, “provided that articles manufactured from * * * steel wire * * * shall pay the rate of duty imposed upon the wire used in the manufacture of such articles,” and. certain additional duties. This article is not round steel wire. It is only manufactured from steel wire in the sense that wires are cut up in order to make this product; such cutting process resulting in the destruction of the wire. It would be impracticable for the customs authorities to determine by inspection or analysis the gauge of the wire from which the steel wool was manufactured. It would seem that said proviso was not intended to apply to articles of this character, and the protest of the importers is, therefore, overruled.

The government bases its contention on the ground that paragraph 193 is more specific than paragraph 135. I think this question has already been disposed of, however, in United States v. Binney, 82 Fed. 992, 27 C. C. A. 347, and in Boker v. United States, 97 Fed. 205, 38 C. C. A. 114.

Under these circumstances, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 F. 772, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buehne-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack