Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 472, 1911 WL 19949, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 82
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 10, 1911
DocketNo. 427
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 Ct. Cust. 472 (Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. 472, 1911 WL 19949, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 82 (ccpa 1911).

Opinion

Montgomery, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an ■ appeal from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers affirming the assessment of duty made by the collector upon merchandise imported at the port of El Paso, Tex.

The merchandise in question consists of a number of shipments of ore from Mexico, each shipment containing lead in large or small percentage and each containing over 10 per cent of zinc. All were assessed with duty on both the lead and the zinc contents under para[473]*473graphs 181 and 193 of the act of 1909. These paragraphs read as follows:

181. Lead-bearing ore of all kinds, one and one-half cents per pound on the lead contained therein: Provided, That on all importations of lead-bearing ores the duties shall be estimated af the port of entry, and a bond given in double the amount of such estimated duties for the transportation of the ores by common carriers bonded for the transportation of appraised or unappraised merchandise to properly equipped sampling or smelting establishments, whether designated as bonded warehouses or otherwise. On the arrival of the ores at such establishments they shall be sampled according to commercial methods under the supervision of Government officers, who shall be stationed at such establishments, and who shall submit the samples thus obtained to a Government assayer, designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall make a proper assay of the sample and report the result to the proper customs officers, and the import entries shall be liquidated thereon, except in case of ores that shall be removed to abonded warehouse to be refined for exportation as provided by law. And the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make all necessary regulations to enforce the provisions of this paragraph.
193. Zinc-bearing ore of all kinds, including calamine, containing less than ten per centum of zinc, shall be admitted free of duty; containing ten per centum or more of zinc and less^han twenty per centum, one-fourth of one cent per pound on the zinc contained therein; containing twenty per centum or more of zinc and less than twenty-five per centum, one-half of one cent per pound on the zinc contained therein; containing twenty-five per centum of zinc or more, one cent per pound on the zinc contained therein: Provided, That on all importations of zinc-bearing ores the duties shall be estimated at the port of entry, and a bond given in double the amount of such estimated duties for the transportation of the ores by common carriers bonded for the transportation of appraised or unappraised merchandise to properly equipped sampling or smelting establishments, whether designated as bonded warehouses or otherwise, On the arrival of the ores at such establishments they shall be sampled according to commercial methods under the supervision of Government officers, who shall be stationed at such establishments, and who shall submit the samples thus obtained to a Government assayer, designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall make a proper assay of the sample and report the result to the proper customs officers, and the import entries, shall be liquidated thereon, except in case of ores that shall be removed to a bonded warehouse to be refilled for exportation as provided by law. And the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make all necessary regulations to enforce the provisions of this paragraph.

The importer claimed that it was improper to assess dutj^ under both paragraphs, and that these ores were imported and smelted merely for the lead contents and should therefore be assessed with dutjr only under paragraph 181 — the lead paragraph. The Board of General Appraisers overruled the importer’s claim and sustained the action of the collector.

It is contended- by the appellant that the records of the tariff hearing (vol. 3, p. 2612) show that the question was presented to Congress of specifically providing that where both lead and zinc appeared the ore should pajr duty on both the lead and zinc contained, and that as the proposed amendment was not adopted the inference should be drawn that Congress intended that the ore should not be taxed for [474]*474both the lead and zinc content. The record of the tariff hearing shows that there was presented a proposed amendment to the law, reading as follows:

Lead-bearing ores of all kinds, H cents per pound on lead contained therein; zinc-bearing ores of all kinds, 3.2 cents per pound on the zinc contained therein: Provided, That all ores imported which contain both lead and zinc shall pay 1J cents per pound on lead contained therein and also cents per pound on the zinc contained therein.

• This proposed amendment was not adopted by Congress, but the language actually employed was that appearing in the sections quoted above. We can not regard this incident as controlling unless we shall find such ambiguity in the language employed as justifies res.ort to side lights. Many reasons might have suggested themselves to the Members of Congress why this particular language should not be emploj^ed, and among them is that it was thought best to exempt zinc-bearing ores entirely from duty where they contained less than 10 per cent of zinc.

It is next contended that lead-bearing ores and zinc-bearing ores are distinctly different articles of commerce, and that where the lead ore is recovered the zinc is not and where the zinc ore is recovered the lead is not. To place a construction upon the statute which would confer upon the importer the privilege of determining for himself to which use he would put the ores bearing both lead and zinc is perhaps possible, but before such a construction should be adopted we ought to be convinced that the intention of Congress vesting this privilege in the importer is made to clearly appear by the enactment.

It is said in the brief of counsel that we have a case showing that lead ore as it occurs in nature with a lower zinc content than 35 per cent can only be smelted for lead, whereas zinc ore is concentrated to, increase the zinc content, and the lead present is penalized and lost.

We think this is a misapprehension of the record. Prof. Hoffman, a witness called for the importer, testified:

A. In zinc-smelting plants in the Joplin district there is a certain standard which forms the starting point from which zinc ores are judged, and zinc ores to be up to the Joplin standard, as it it generally called, must have 60 per cent of zinc.
Q. As a smelting proposition what approximately is the lowest percentage of zinc which can be profitably handled in charging the zinc smelter — charging it with ore?— A. The lowest zinc ore that is treated in retorts is that of Belgium, and in metallurgy we generally speak of the Belgium standard, which means that the ore should not contain less than 35 per cent of zinc.

On cross-examination he was ask.ed:

Q. Do you mean to say that an ore containing less zinc than 30 per cent, we will say, is not a zinc-bearing ore? — -A. Well, metallugically you would not consider it a zinc ore since you can not make any profit in extracting the metal.
Q. But it is a zinc-bearing ore? — A. Yes; in a general way of talking. The definition of an ore is strictly that you must be able to make a profit. If you can not make a profit in extracting the metal it ceases to be, metallurgically speaking, an ore.

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

Related

C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States
37 Cust. Ct. 319 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Tower v. United States
34 Cust. Ct. 55 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
Grace v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 148 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 507 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Ct. Cust. 472, 1911 WL 19949, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-kansas-city-smelting-refining-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1911.