Rice v. United States

S.D. New York

Rice v. United States

123 F. 848, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 29, 1901

DocketNo. 3,028

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 848 (Rice v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rice v. United States, 123 F. 848, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669 (S.D.N.Y. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The goods in question are classified and claimed under paragraph 387, Schedule F, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 186 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1669). It is undisputed that they are “all silk.” The only question is whether, under the latter parts of said paragraph, they are dutiable (as assessed) at $3 per pound, as “boiled off,” or (as claimed) at $2.50 per pound, as “in the gum.” The evidence tends to prove that the goods, while they have been partly boiled, have not been “boiled off,” for, apparently, out of 25 per cent of gum, only 7.6 per cent, has been removed, thus leaving 17.4 per cent, in the article. In view of the fact that the goods still remain chiefly and substantially in the gum more than in any other condition, I think the slight boiling is insufficient to remove them from the classification as “silk in the gum.” They have been boiled, but not boiled off in the sense of a substantial boiling, sufficient to accomplish the result of removing the gum from the silk.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The goods in question are classified and claimed under paragraph 387, Schedule F, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 186 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1669). It is undisputed that they are “all silk.” The only question is whether, under the latter parts of said paragraph, they are dutiable (as assessed) at $3 per pound, as “boiled off,” or (as claimed) at $2.50 per pound, as “in the gum.” The evidence tends to prove that the goods, while they have been partly boiled, have not been “boiled off,” for, apparently, out of 25 per cent of gum, only 7.6 per cent, has been removed, thus leaving 17.4 per cent, in the article. In view of the fact that the goods still remain chiefly and substantially in the gum more than in any other condition, I think the slight boiling is insufficient to remove them from the classification as “silk in the gum.” They have been boiled, but not boiled off in the sense of a substantial boiling, sufficient to accomplish the result of removing the gum from the silk.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 848, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-united-states-nysd-1901.