Tower v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 408, 1917 WL 20057, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 11
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJanuary 22, 1917
DocketNo. 1748
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Ct. Cust. 408 (Tower 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
Tower v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. 408, 1917 WL 20057, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 11 (ccpa 1917).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Eight dozen long-handled round-point polished shovels and 6 dozen D-handled square-point polished shovels were classified by the collector of customs as articles of metal not specially provided for [409]*409and assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913 which reads as follows:

167. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this section; * ⅜ * if composed wholly or in chief value of Ron, steel, ⅜ * ⅜ or other metal, hut not plated witli gold or silver, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, 20 per centum ad valorem.

The importer protested that the goods were agricultural implements, and claimed that they were therefore free of duty under paragraph 391 of the free list, which reads as follows:

391. Agricultural implements: Plows, tooth and disk harrows, headers, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, horserakes, cultivators, thrashing machines, cotton gins, * * * wagons and carts, and all other agricultural implements of any kind and description, whether specifically mentioned herein or not, whether in whole or in parts, including repair parts.

On thev hearing before the Board of General Appraisers five witnesses — Edward W. McCarty, George Holmes, R. Seagraves, Frank J. Semple, and Paul A. Griffith — testified on the part of the importer. Edward W. McCarty, a shovel manufacturer of Hamilton, Canada, stated that prior to importing the goods he had made a very careful investigation of the use and distribution in the United States and Canada of polished spades and shovels. He said that his investigations brought him in contact with various hardware concerns and distributing houses in the United States, such as E. C. Simmons, of St. Louis; Belknap, of Louisville; Supplee-Biddle and Shields & Bro., of Philadelphia; Grerar, Adams & Co., of Chicago; the Pacific Hardware Co., and hardware concerns in Minneapolis. His investigation was not confined to wholesale houses, but extended to traveling salesmen for wholesale establishments, to retail dealers who sell the shovels to the consumer, and to the farmers who used the shovels. He testified that 80 per cent of polished spades and shovels are used by the farmer. He said that the long-handled polished shovel is employed by the farmer in the digging of ditches, the planting of trees, and in the building of fences, and that the D-handled shovel is used by the farmer for spading in the nurseries or in the fields or about the stable, and for all sorts of purposes. According to this witness, railroads and supply houses do not buy the polished shovel for track work, inasmuch as the polished shovel is not as strong or as heavy or as durable as D-handled square black shovels which are made and used for track work. He asserted that of all the shovels imported by his concern only about 2 per cent were black shovels and that one-half of the black shovels went to railroad contractors and railroad supply houses.

George Holmes testified that he was a wholesale dealer in hardware and sold both black and polished shovels to the retail trade. He said he sold shovels to retailers of Germantown, Allentown, and Chester, Pa., and that his customers ranged from Atlantic City, N. J., to Reading, Pa. He said that on the basis of orders placed [410]*410with him by retail dealers and of sales made by himself he could say that polished shovels were sold by him largely to gardeners and that black shovels were sold to contractors and railroad constructors. He said that the shovel used in flower gardens, for nursery purposes, and for garden truck, is a polished shovel, and that the shovel which had the largest sale was the D-handled round-point polished shovel.

it. Seagraves testified that he had been identified with the hardware business for 20 years. For some four years of that period he was engaged in the retail business in an agricultural district in New Jersey, a district largely devoted to farms and dairies. He testified that as a retailer he handled both polished and black round-pointed and square-pointed D-handled shovels, and that the great mass of his sales was to farmers who demanded and purchased polished shovels, tie said that he was at the time of testifying the buyer for the Supplee-Biddle Hardware Co., a wholesale concern which sold to the retail trade as far south as Florida and as far west as Illinois. He stated that his buying depended on the orders sent in and that from such orders he was able to tell whether there was a greater or less demand for a special kind of shovel in particular districts. The witness was posted as to the uses to which shovels were put, not only by his own experience, but also by reports of salesmen of his firm, as well as by letters from the houses with which his firm dealt, and on’ that experience and information he averred that the shovel used in agricultural districts was the polished shovel. He said that the shovel sold in the coal region differed from that sold in the farming districts, and that the Supplee-Biddle Co. sold more polished than black shovels to the farming communities and more black than polished shovels to mining districts. He declared that the sales of polished shovels to the farming trade was larger than the sales of such shovels to any other trade. He was unable to give any information as to the kind of shovels used by contractors, inasmuch as the Supplee-Biddle Co. had very little business with railroad, paving, and sewer contractors, and because that class of trade generally dealt directly with' the manufacturer and not with his concern.

Frank J. Semple testified that he was connected with the E. C. Simmons Hardware Co., wholesale dealers in hardware, and that that firm dealt with more than 700 other concerns located all over the United States. He said that he had been a salesman of hardware for 20 years; that he was then in charge of the selling department of the Simmons Hardware Co.; that by reason of his experience as a salesman and in the sales department, as well as by reason of the information acquired by coming in contact with the trade, and by trips and discussions had with salesmen, he had become acquainted with the class of customers to which D-handled polished round and square shovels were sold, and could say that that class of goods was sold almost exclusively to the retail trade in agricultural districts.

[411]*411Paul A. Griffith testified that he had been connected for 26 or 27 years with Shields & Bro., wholesale and retail hardware merchants, and that during that time he worked as salesman, made up orders for hardware, and traveled a little for the firm. He said that Shields & Bro. carried D-handled polished and D-handled black shovels; that D-handled polished shovels were sold chiefly in agricultural communities. He stated that of the shovels sold by his firm about 60 per cent were polished shovels and about 40 per cent black shovels, and that more polished shovels than black shovels were sold in agricultural districts. He said that as a rule contractors buy black shovels and that he did not know of any use of polished shovels except by agricultural interests, and that that statement was based on his 15 years’ experience in making up orders for hardware and on conferences had with the firm’s customers.

Five witnesses — Andrew Z. Boyd, Arthur G. Sherman, Philip Schaeffer, John M. Kohlmeier, and C. H. Lambelet — testified on the part of the Government.

Andrew Z.

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

Related

New York Merchandise Co. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 452 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
Richardson Co. v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 179 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ct. Cust. 408, 1917 WL 20057, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-v-united-states-ccpa-1917.