Cochran v. United States

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

Cochran v. United States

180 F. 955, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5542

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

DecidedJune 28, 1910

DocketNos. 4,717, 4718

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. 955 (Cochran 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

Cochran v. United States, 180 F. 955, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5542 (circtsdny 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

The articles in controversy concededly consist of untrimmed hats of imitation horsehair. They were assessed for duty at 60 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 390 and section 7 of the tariff act of 1897, by similitude, as silk wearing apparel. The articles are not enumerated in the tariff act and the assessment at 60 per cent, was approved by the board. The question now raised by the protest is whether such merchandise is not properly dutiable under paragraph 314 at 50 per cent., or paragraph 409 at 50 per cent, or 35 per cent., or section 6 at 20 per cent.

The government claims that the evidence shows that hats of imitation horsehair more nearly resemble hats made of silk braid than hats made of cotton braid, and therefore they were dutiable under paragraph 390, by similitude, to silk wearing apparel, while the importers contend that the evidence shows that the material of which the hats are made is of vegetable origin, and accordingly should have been assessed by similitude under paragraph 409.

In view of the decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit in Paterson v. United States, 166 Fed. 733, 92 C. C. A. 524, and followed by the decision of Judge Holt, in Rheims v. United States (C. C.) 169 Fed. 662, it would seem to me that the importers are right, and that the hats in question have been improperly assessed. The evidence before the court, taken since the decision by the Board of General Appraisers, indicates that in trade imitation horsehair hats are classed as straw hats; and moreover, in appearance and quality, [956]*956it is readily perceivable that they are not of silk or silk braid, but that they bear similitude to hats of straw. It is uncontradicted that the material of which the hats are made is chiefly of vegetable fiber or origin, and under the circumstances I think the duty should have been assessed at 35 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 409, the provision relating to the assessment of duties on hats, and not the more general provision under which the assessment was levied.

An order reversing the decision of the Board of General Appraisers may be entered.

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

The articles in controversy concededly consist of untrimmed hats of imitation horsehair. They were assessed for duty at 60 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 390 and section 7 of the tariff act of 1897, by similitude, as silk wearing apparel. The articles are not enumerated in the tariff act and the assessment at 60 per cent, was approved by the board. The question now raised by the protest is whether such merchandise is not properly dutiable under paragraph 314 at 50 per cent., or paragraph 409 at 50 per cent, or 35 per cent., or section 6 at 20 per cent.

The government claims that the evidence shows that hats of imitation horsehair more nearly resemble hats made of silk braid than hats made of cotton braid, and therefore they were dutiable under paragraph 390, by similitude, to silk wearing apparel, while the importers contend that the evidence shows that the material of which the hats are made is of vegetable origin, and accordingly should have been assessed by similitude under paragraph 409.

In view of the decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit in Paterson v. United States, 166 Fed. 733, 92 C. C. A. 524, and followed by the decision of Judge Holt, in Rheims v. United States (C. C.) 169 Fed. 662, it would seem to me that the importers are right, and that the hats in question have been improperly assessed. The evidence before the court, taken since the decision by the Board of General Appraisers, indicates that in trade imitation horsehair hats are classed as straw hats; and moreover, in appearance and quality, [956]*956it is readily perceivable that they are not of silk or silk braid, but that they bear similitude to hats of straw. It is uncontradicted that the material of which the hats are made is chiefly of vegetable fiber or origin, and under the circumstances I think the duty should have been assessed at 35 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 409, the provision relating to the assessment of duties on hats, and not the more general provision under which the assessment was levied.

An order reversing the decision of the Board of General Appraisers may be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. 955, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-united-states-circtsdny-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack