Thomsen v. United States

Customs and Patent Appeals

Thomsen v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 37, 1911 WL 19887, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 112

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1911

DocketNo. 412

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Ct. Cust. 37 (Thomsen 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

Thomsen v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. 37, 1911 WL 19887, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 112 (ccpa 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Maetin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case relates to an importation of baskets which are dutiable under the tariff act-of 1909. The collector held them to be baskets [38]*38of wood, stained, dyed, or painted, and therefore dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 214. The appellants protested against this assessment, and claimed that the goods were manufactures of chip, and therefore dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 463. Several alternative claims were' included within the protest, but the one just stated is the claim which appellants finally rely upon. The board overruled the protest, and the case is now submitted to this court for a review of that decision.

The facts in the case are' few and undisputed. The importation consists of baskets. These are made of such wood shavings as are called chip, and they are stained, dyed, or painted.

The two paragraphs which the parties severally rely up<?n, are here copied in full.

214. Porch, and window blinds, baskets, curtains, shades, or screens of bamboo, wood, sferawj or. compositions of wood, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if stained, dyed, painted, printed, polished, grained, or creosoted, forty per centum ad valorem.

463. Manufactures of bone, chip, grass, horn, quills, iridia rubber, palm leaf, straw, weeds, or whalebone, or of which these substances or any of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; but the terms “grass” and “straw” shall be understood to mean these substances in then natural form and structure, and not the separated fiber thereof; sponges made of rubber, forty per centum ad valorem; combs, composed wholly of horn, or composed of horn and metal, fifty per centum ad valorem.

As will be seen, the first paragraph provides for baskets of wood, making them' dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem if stained, dyed, or painted. These terms certainly cover the importation, which consists of baskets of wood, stained, dyed, or painted. The second paragraph provides for manufactures of chip and makes them dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem. This paragraph also plainly includes the articles in question, for they are manufactures and are composed of chip. The question therefore is between the two paragraphs and requires a decision as to which is the dominant provision.

The term “baskets,” being the name of the articles, seems clearly to be a more exact and specific designation of them than the term “manufactures.” This latter term' in this application is one of general description only. The fact that the component material is more specifically described in the second paragraph does not conflict with this conclusion, for nevertheless the term baskets is the exact and specific name of the article itself.

This principle was involved in two cases which were recently decided by this court, namely, Brody et al. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. Appls., 15; T. D. 31573) and Krauss & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. Appls., 17; T. D. 31574). The present decision is in accord with the views expressed in the two cases just named.

The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

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

Maetin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case relates to an importation of baskets which are dutiable under the tariff act-of 1909. The collector held them to be baskets [38]*38of wood, stained, dyed, or painted, and therefore dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 214. The appellants protested against this assessment, and claimed that the goods were manufactures of chip, and therefore dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 463. Several alternative claims were' included within the protest, but the one just stated is the claim which appellants finally rely upon. The board overruled the protest, and the case is now submitted to this court for a review of that decision.

The facts in the case are' few and undisputed. The importation consists of baskets. These are made of such wood shavings as are called chip, and they are stained, dyed, or painted.

The two paragraphs which the parties severally rely up<?n, are here copied in full.

214. Porch, and window blinds, baskets, curtains, shades, or screens of bamboo, wood, sferawj or. compositions of wood, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if stained, dyed, painted, printed, polished, grained, or creosoted, forty per centum ad valorem.

463. Manufactures of bone, chip, grass, horn, quills, iridia rubber, palm leaf, straw, weeds, or whalebone, or of which these substances or any of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; but the terms “grass” and “straw” shall be understood to mean these substances in then natural form and structure, and not the separated fiber thereof; sponges made of rubber, forty per centum ad valorem; combs, composed wholly of horn, or composed of horn and metal, fifty per centum ad valorem.

As will be seen, the first paragraph provides for baskets of wood, making them' dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem if stained, dyed, or painted. These terms certainly cover the importation, which consists of baskets of wood, stained, dyed, or painted. The second paragraph provides for manufactures of chip and makes them dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem. This paragraph also plainly includes the articles in question, for they are manufactures and are composed of chip. The question therefore is between the two paragraphs and requires a decision as to which is the dominant provision.

The term “baskets,” being the name of the articles, seems clearly to be a more exact and specific designation of them than the term “manufactures.” This latter term' in this application is one of general description only. The fact that the component material is more specifically described in the second paragraph does not conflict with this conclusion, for nevertheless the term baskets is the exact and specific name of the article itself.

This principle was involved in two cases which were recently decided by this court, namely, Brody et al. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. Appls., 15; T. D. 31573) and Krauss & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Custs. Appls., 17; T. D. 31574). The present decision is in accord with the views expressed in the two cases just named.

The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ct. Cust. 37, 1911 WL 19887, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomsen-v-united-states-ccpa-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack