United States v. Benneche

6 Ct. Cust. 92, 1915 WL 20766, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 46
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 14, 1915
DocketNo. 1465
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 6 Ct. Cust. 92 (United States v. Benneche) 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
United States v. Benneche, 6 Ct. Cust. 92, 1915 WL 20766, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 46 (ccpa 1915).

Opinion

Barber, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The merchandise in this case is sticks of boxwood approximately 14 inches in length and of small diameters. The evidence does not disclose how the fact is, but the Board of General Appraisers found [93]*93tbat they were cut from tbe root end of the boxwood stems. The appearance of the sticks warrants the conclusion. They are covered with protuberances from which either the small rootlets or limbs extending therefrom have been cut off. Whatever bark was on the same has been removed. In their present condition they well,warrant the finding of the board that they are in their rough, natural state. They are, in fact, rough, have sharp points where the roots or limbs have been cut off, as well as in other places- — sharp enough to tear the skin of a user’s hand. To fit them for handles for any practical use they must at least be smoothed, and to attain the condition of ordinary umbrella handles must also be stained or varnished. If a perfectly straight handle be required, few answer to that condition. The evidence shows that they are to be used for making umbrella handles. If crooked handles are desired, they must be steamed and bent and in each a hole must be drilled or bored to receive the metal or other rod or stick which constitutes the runner, stretcher, or stick, however it may be denominated, necessary to a finished umbrella. The evidence also shows that umbrella handles are parts of umbrella sticks; that while formerly the runner, stretcher, or stick was of wood doweled to the handle, it is now usually of metal, although it may sometimes happen that the stick and handle are one piece of wood.

Pursuant to instructions from the Treasury Department (T. D. 33634) the collector assessed those sticks as wood, unmanufactured, under paragraph 203 of the tariff act of 1909. The importer claimed free entry under paragraph 713. The board sustained the protest. The Government appealed and upon the argument here claims that the sticks are dutiable as assessed, but, if not, that they may be classified under paragraph 480 as an article manufactured in whole or in part and also that they are equally within the provisions of paragraph 478 as umbrella sticks.

We quote here the material parts of paragraphs 203, 478, and 713.

203. Sawed boards, planks, deals, and all forms of sawed cedar, lignum-vite, lance-wood, ebony, box, granadilla, mahogany, rosewood, satinwood, and all other cabinet woods not further manufactured than sawed, * * * veneers of wood, and wood unmanufactured, not specially provided for in this section, * * *.
478. * * * Sticks for umbrellas, parasols, or sunshades, and walking canes, finished or unfinished, * * *.
713. Woods: Cedar, lignum-vitas, lancewood, ebony, box, granadilla, mahogany, rosewood, satinwood, and all forms of cabinet woods, in the log, rough, or hewn only, and red cedar (Juniperus Virginiana) timber, hewn, sided, squared, or round; sticks of partridge, hair wood, pimento, orange, myrtle, bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufac-tured, india malacca joints, and other woods not specially provided for in this section, in the rough, or not further advanced than cut into lengths suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, whips, fishing rods, or walking canes.

The instructions of the Treasury Department, as a.ppears thereby, were based upon the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in Abstract 22873 (T. D. 30424, erroneously referred to as T. D. 33424).

[94]*94In that case, so far as tlie printed decision shows, tbe merchandise was umbrella handles, the lengths of which were not stated. The board held that they were not of sufficient length to warrant classification as sticks for umbrellas. They were assessed for duty under paragraph 198 of the act of 1897, which is identical with paragraph 203 above quoted, and claimed to be entitled to free entry under paragraph 700 of the same act, which, for the purposes of this case, is not unlike paragraph 713 of the act of 1909. The protest was overruled.

The instructions also refer to T. D. 24995, in which the board considered, as appears by the printed decision, wooden handles for umbrellas in the usual form for such articles and which, omitting the crooked portion, were about 5 inches in length. In its opinion the board said that from an inspection of the exhibits and in view of the testimony the articles were not sticks for umbrellas within the meaning of paragraph 462 of the act of 1897, which for the purposes of this case is not different from paragraph 478, quoted above. It further found that the handles were not within paragraph 700 of the free list, and held them dutiable as manufactures of wood not more specially provided for than in paragraph 208 of the act of 1897, under which the importers claimed.

In neither of the above cases did the board state the condition of the merchandise, as to whether or not it was finished and ready for use, other than as above set forth, but we infer from what it said that it was in a more finished condition than are the sticks now before us.

The board in the case at bar said:

It is evident that duty was assessed upon the theory 1hat these slicks are umbrella handles and not umbrella sticks. They run approximately 14 inches in length and each is apparently cut from the root end of a boxwood stem and are .in the rough, natural state. From the testimony it appears that for a long period of years they have always been passed free of duty. While it is true that some of them before being used are bent, nevertheless many of them are used in the natural form with a steel rod inserted. They are more than umbrella handles, and it is a matter of common knowledge that full-length umbrella sticks are no longer used. This fact, together wilh a long-continued practice of classifying them free of duty, warrants a reversal of the collector’s action, and the protests are therefore sustained.

We agree with, the conclusion of the board in this case.

Paragraph 203 provides that merchandise dutiable thereunder is sawed forms of certain woods and all other cabinet woods not further manufactured than sawed and wood unmanufactured not specially provided for.

Paragraph 713 gives free entry to certain woods, including boxwood and all forms of cabinet woods in the log, rough, or hewn only, and to sticks of certain woods and other woods not specially provided for, in the rough, or not further advanced than cut into lengths [95]*95suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols, sunsbad.es, whips, fishing rods, or walking canes.

The merchandise to which free entry is thereby given of.course would not be further manufactured than that for which a duty is provided under paragraph 203, and so, but for paragraph 713, would be dutiable under paragraph 203. Construing the two together, however, application and force must be given to paragraph 713 before merchandise otherwise within paragraph 203 can be held dutiable thereunder. The boxwood here is not in the log. Its origin is not shown by the record.

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it is said that boxwood is wood obtained from the well-known tree or shrub called the common box, which is in general use for garden borders and other ornament il purposes and is found in Europe and Asia; and. also from another variety known as the Turkey boxwood found in the islands of the Mediterranean, Turkey, and Asia Minor.

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

Related

Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. United States
50 C.C.P.A. 62 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)
Rico Products Co. v. United States
44 Cust. Ct. 100 (U.S. Customs Court, 1960)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 1 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Chas. H. Demarest, Inc. v. United States
28 Cust. Ct. 488 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)
Superior Dowel Co. v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 292 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
United States v. Gerdau Co.
6 Ct. Cust. 97 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ct. Cust. 92, 1915 WL 20766, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-benneche-ccpa-1915.