Flower Center, Inc. v. United States

29 Cust. Ct. 49, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1409
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedJuly 7, 1952
DocketC. D. 1443
StatusPublished

This text of 29 Cust. Ct. 49 (Flower Center, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flower Center, Inc. v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 49, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1409 (cusc 1952).

Opinion

Mollison, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest is described on the invoice as “feather heathers for hat trims” and as “feather heathers for hat trimmings.” According to the collector’s letter of transmittal accompanying the protest, it was classified as artificial flowers in chief value of feathers at the rate of 60 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 1518 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Presidential proclamation reported in T. D. 51898.

The claims made in the protest or by amendment thereof are for duty at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provision in said paragraph 1518, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, for—

Feathers * * *:
* * * * * * *
Dressed, colored, or otherwise advanced or manufactured in any manner, * * *

or for — ■

* * * all articles not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of any of the feathers respecting which a rate of duty is specified in paragraph 1518, Tariff Act of 1930.

or, alternatively, at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of said paragraph 1518, as modified by the said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as ma.de effective April 21, 1948, by the Presidential proclamation published in T. D. 51898, for “Artificial * * * flowers” when not specially provided for and composed wholly or in chief value of materials other than yarns, threads, filaments, tinsel wire, lame, bullions, metal threads, beads, bugles, spangles, or rayon or other synthetic textile.

At the trial of the issue counsel for the plaintiffs offered in evidence two samples of the merchandise which were received in evidence as plaintiffs’ collective exhibit 1 and were stipulated to be representative of the above-described items on the invoice, which are numbered 5504 and 5000. It was also stipulated that the articles in question were withdrawn from warehouse on June 7,1948; that the merchandise [51]*51involved consists of artificial flowers in chief value of feathers; and that the feathers which constitute the component material of chief value of the imported items are feathers respecting which a rate of duty is specified in paragraph 1518. Upon such record, the protest was submitted for decision, time being allowed for the filing of briefs.

It is apparent from the record facts that the merchandise here involved was entered for warehouse upon its arrival in the United States, and was withdrawn therefrom on June 7, 1948. The rate of duty applicable thereto, and the classification status thereof, must be determined as of that day. Section 557, Tariff Act of 1930, T. D. 51802, and T. D. 51898, supra. It is also apparent that the merchandise consists of articles made from feathers, to wit, artificial flowers, and are something more than “Feathers * * * Dressed, colored, or otherwise advanced or manufactured in any manner.” Plaintiffs’ contention under the first concession specified under paragraph 1518 in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, supra, is therefore untenable.

As originally enacted, paragraph 1518 made provision for two classes of artificial flowers. A duty of 90 per centum ad valorem was imposed upon those composed—

* * * wholly or in chief value of yarns, threads, filaments, tinsel wire, lame, bullions, metal threads, beads, bugles, spangles, or rayon or other synthetic textile * * *

while upon those composed- — ■

* * * wholly or in chief value of other materials and not specially provided for h*

a duty of 60 per centum ad valorem was imposed.

It will be noted that although the rate of duty applicable to artificial flowers was dependent upon the composition of the flowers, the tariff designation was not one by composition, but by name, i. e., artificial flowers. This distinction is important and must be borne in mind.

Paragraph 1518, as originally enacted, also contained a provision reading as follows:

* * * boas, boutonnieres, wreaths, and all articles not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of any of the feathers, flowers, leaves, or other material above mentioned, shall be subject to the rate of duty provided in this paragraph for such materials, but not less than 60 per centum ad valorem: * * *.

The rate of duty applicable to certain of the articles covered by the last-quoted provision was reduced by the modification thereof contained in the trade agreement with the United Kingdom reported in T. D. 49753, but this fact is of no moment here as the proclamation of the said trade agreement by the President was terminated as of December 31, 1947, by the Presidential proclamation reported in T.D. 51811.

[52]*52In part I of schedule XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, the following concessions as to the rates of duty applicable to artificial flowers were provided:

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

Related

American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington
141 U.S. 468 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Knauth v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 58 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)
Lorsch v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 172 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Cust. Ct. 49, 1952 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 1409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flower-center-inc-v-united-states-cusc-1952.