United States v. Cohn Co.

6 Ct. Cust. 426, 1915 WL 20781, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 117
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedDecember 6, 1915
DocketNo. 1554
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ct. Cust. 426 (United States v. Cohn Co.) 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. Cohn Co., 6 Ct. Cust. 426, 1915 WL 20781, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 117 (ccpa 1915).

Opinion

Barber, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Paragraph 25 of the tariff act of 1913 is as follows:

25. Collodion and all other liquid solutions of pyroxylin, or of other cellulose esters, or of cellulose, 15 per centum ad valorem; compounds of pyroxylin or of other cellulose esters, whether known as celluloid or by any other name, if in blocks, sheets, rods, tubes, or other forms not polished, wholly or partly, and not made into finished or partly finished articles, 25 per centum ad valorem; if polished, wholly or partly, or if finished or partly finished articles, of which collodion or any compound of pyroxylin or other cellulose esters, by whatever name known, is the component material of chief value, 40 per centum ad valorem.

[427]*427Thereunder merchandise concededly known as celluloid and represented before us by Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 was assessed for duty at 40 per cent ad valorem. Exhibit 1 is a celluloid tube, Exhibit 2 is a celluloid rod, while Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6 are small rectangular pieces of celluloid in sheets.

The appraiser appears to have reported that the merchandise was celluloid in sheets, rods, and tubes, wholly or partly polished, and it was so classified and assessed.

The importers protested, claiming duty under the same paragraph at 25 per centum upon the ground that the merchandise was not wholly or partly polished within the meaning of the statute.

Upon hearing, the Board of General Appraisers by majority opinion sustained the protest, and the Government appeals to this court. A considerable amount of testimony was introduced before the board.

As to the method of manufacturing the merchandise involved in this case, it is in substance agreed, as it was in effect found by the board, that pyroxylin or celluloid is first made into blocks commonly about 36 inches long and 20 inches in width. These blocks are then fed through a machine known as a “ sheeter,” which, by successive operations, reduces the blocks to the form of sheets having the same dimension as the blocks with the exception of thickness, which varies according to the product desired. The importations of the sheet celluloid in this case are from about one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch in thickness, but they are produced much thicker or much thinner as the requirements may be. These sheets are then placed in a drying room for the purpose of seasoning, during which process the volatile solvents evaporate leaving the sheets in a warped, un-straightened form showing thereon the knife marks produced by the cutting operations of the sheeter machine. Thereafter the sheets, usually in groups of 12 or more, are straightened by heating and subjecting them to pressure in an hydraulic press which, generally speaking, leaves them regular and even in form. This heat and pressure partially removes the knife marks and renders the surface somewhat smoother. In this condition they are the subject of commerce, but usually they are not such before being so straightened. If any considerable degree of polish is required, the sheets are further treated by heating and subjecting the same to pressure between metallic plates, the greater pressure producing the smoother finish and higher polish. The heat renders the sheets sufficiently plastic so that they receive and retain the finish of any object placed next to them. Sufficient pressure will remove all traces of the knife marks resulting from the sheeting process. These marks have been partially removed from the imported sheets here, but are plainly visible, and the sheets have not been subjected to pressure between metallic [428]*428plates, but have been subjected to pressure in a press where the surface of one sheet was in contact with the surface of another. In other words, they have been subjected to the process of heating and pressure necessary to straighten the same after they have remained a proper length of time in the drying room.

Illustrative exhibits are before us showing the condition of the sheets in their varying degrees of polish or finish. There are three such exhibits — illustrative Exhibit A representing the surface of sheets like official Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6, showing the full size thereof and knife marks thereon; illustrative Exhibit B shows a sheet polished by hydraulic pressure between metal plates upon which there are no knife marks; while illustrative Exhibit C represents a much thinner sheet than'the official Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6, and is in the condition when removed from the drying room and before being straightened or smoothed.

The Government’s evidence establishes that sheets of the thickness and finish of illustrative Exhibit C, and like sheets from 0.005 to 0.010 of an inch in thickness, are, before being smoothed and straightened and in the condition as taken from the drying room, an article of commerce, but, as stated, all the witnesses agree that sheets of -the thickness of the official exhibits are not such to any or any considerable extent until after they have been subjected to the straightening process.

The tube represented by Exhibit 1 has an exterior diameter of a little more than three-fourths of an inch with an interior diameter of about one-eighth of an inch less, and the rod represented b]*- Exhibit 2 is a little less than one-eighth of an inch in diameter. The rods are made by forcing the plastic celluloid through a small cylinder containing an orifice the size of the rod to be produced, while the tubes are produced by forcing the same material through a similar cylinder having a round aperture with a center core. Like the sheets the rods and tubes are then placed in the drying room, from which, after they have remained a proper length of time, they are taken and by the use of a mandrel or other suitable tool they are straightened. The evidence leaves the methods employed in straightening these rods and tubes somewhat uncertain. The witnesses substantially agreed that polish was given to these tubes or rods by the application of a polishing wheel or plate, by the use of an abrasive material, or by placing them in an acid bath, and as we understand the evidence all the witnesses agreed that the rods and tubes in this case have not been so polished. In other words, they are in the condition as left by the straightening processes.

From what we have said it will be observed, therefore, that none of the merchandise here involved has been subjected to any process primarily designed to produce a polished surface, but the Govern[429]*429ment, while conceding the point, insists that nevertheless the application of heat -and pressure to the merchandise when it emerges from the drying room has resulted in partly polished surface or surfaces and, therefore, that the same are partly polished within the contemplation of the paragraph. A similar contention is made on behalf of an amicus curiae, whose brief and argument have been received and considered in the case.

It may be of some benefit, without going into the details of processes by which celluloid is obtained, to quote the description of celluloid given in Spons’ Encyclopaedia:

Celluloid consists virtually of vegetable fiber, treated with a mixture of nitric and sulphuric acids, and which, for want of a better term, may be called “pyroxylin,” though it is not identical with that compound; this is dissolved in a suitable solvent and afterwards dried.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ct. Cust. 426, 1915 WL 20781, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cohn-co-ccpa-1915.