United States v. Hinton

22 C.C.P.A. 90, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 142
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 1934
DocketNo. 3760; No. 3763
StatusPublished

This text of 22 C.C.P.A. 90 (United States v. Hinton) 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. Hinton, 22 C.C.P.A. 90, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 142 (ccpa 1934).

Opinion

Graham, Presiding Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Certain seed imported by the appellant, and described by the appraiser in his answers to protests as "teazle seed”, was the subject of three entries at the port of New York, under the Tariff Act of 1930. This was classified by the collector, in each case, as garden and field seeds, not specially provided for, at. 6 cents per pound, under paragraph 764 of said tariff act. The importer, in two protests covering the three entries, contended that the merchandise was free of duty under paragraph 1669 as drugs, or as crude vegetable substances under paragraph 1722, or as oil-bearing seeds and nuts under paragraph 1727 of said act. The protestant also had alternative [92]*92claims that the merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 762 as sunflower seed, either directly or by similitude, or under paragraph 764 as canary seed, either directly or by similitude, or under paragraph 1558 as unenumerated unmanufactured articles. The claims for dutiability by similitude were made under paragraph 1559 of said act.

After hearing, the United States Customs Court held that the imported seeds should be classified as canary seeds, either directly or by similitude, under said paragraph 764, and sustained the protests in that respect.

Thereupon, the Government appealed, insisting that the classification of the collector was correct and should have been sustained, and the protests overruled. On its part, the importer filed a cross appeal, assigning as error that the trial court should have sustained its protest claiming the imported seeds to be free as drugs under said paragraph 1669, or as crude vegetable substances under paragraph 1722, or dutiable as not enumerated unmanufactured substances under said paragraph 1558. •

On the trial, samples of merchandise were offered and received in evidence. It is made to appear from these samples and from the testimony of the witnesses, that the imported seeds are of two varieties. One of these is known as “golden pleasuere.” This seed is rust-colored, and each elongated seed is about three thirty-seconds inch in length. The other seed, known as “teazle”, is straw-colored, and about six thirty-seconds inch in length. The seeds are cleaned and ready for their uses.

The testimony shows that these seeds are imported and used by dealers for sale as a so-called “song restorer ” for birds. The importer, a dealer in bird seed, testified that they were sold and used as a medicine and tonic for birds — not as an article of food, but as a tonic. According to this witness, the seed is never used for growing purposes and is never sold for a field or garden seed, and its sole use is for birds, not exclusively canaries, but for birds, generally. According to this witness, also, the seed has no aromatic odor, but does contain an oil which is beneficial to birds. It appears from the testimony of a witness, Frank D. McManus, that there is no aromatic odor attached to either variety of seed, but the golden pleasuere seed has a slightly pungent taste, when crushed.

It appears from the testimony that the plants from which these teazle and golden pleasxiere seeds are produced grow wild, and are not cultivated as garden or field crops. One variety of teazle is cultivated to some extent for the purpose of procuring fuller’s teazle, which is used to raise the nap of cloth. The record is not entirely satisfactory as to the method of the growing of these particular seeds, most of the information of the witnesses being derived from consulting cyclope[93]*93dias and other works of reference. The scientific names of the -varieties of plants from which these seeds are grown do not appear in the record.

The relevant portions of the paragraphs of the Tariff Act of 1930, are as follows:

Pab. 764. Other garden and field seeds: Beet (except sugar beet), 4 cents per pound; cabbage, 12 cents per pound; canary, 1 cent per pound; carrot, 4 cents per pound; cauliflower, 25 cents per pound; celery, 2 cents per pound; kale, 6 cents per pound; kohlrabi, 8 cents per pound; mangelwurzel, 4 cents per pound; mushroom spawn, 1 cent per pound; onion, 15 cents per pound; parsley, 2 cents per pound; parsnip, 4 cents per pound; pepper, 15 cents per pound; radish, 6 cents per pound; spinach, 1 cent per pound; tree and shrub, 8 cents per pound; turnip, 5 cents per pound; rutabaga, 5 cents per pound; flower, 6 cents per pound; all other garden and field seeds not specially provided for,- 6 cents per pound: Provided, That the provisions for seeds in this schedule shall include such seeds whether used for planting or for other purposes.'
Par. 1558. That there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the importation of all raw or unmanufactured articles not enumerated or provided for, a duty of 10 per centum ad valorem, and on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not specially provided for, a duty of 20 per centum ad valorem.
Par. 1559. That each and every imported article, not enumerated in this Act, which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied to any article enumerated in this Act as chargeable with duty, shall be subject to the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned * * *.
Par. 1669. Drugs such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs, bulbous roots, excrescences, fruits, flowers, dried fibers, dried insects, grains, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, logs, roots, stems, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), seeds of morbid growth, weeds, and all other drugs of vegetable or animal origin; all the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible, and not specially provided for, and are in a crude state, not advanced in value or condition by shredding, grinding, chipping, crushing, or any other process .or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture: Provided, That no article containing alcohol shall be admitted free of duty under this paragraph.
Par. 1722. Moss, seaweeds, and vegetable substances, crude or unmanu-factured, not specially provided for.

The importer, in its cross appeal, makes three contentions: First, that the seeds in question are free of duty as drugs under paragraph 1669, or as crude vegetable substances under paragraph 1722, or, alternatively, that they are dutiable as not enumerated unmanufac-tured articles under paragraph 1558. Other claims in the protest are not insisted upon, and the case will be determined on the issues as made by the parties here.

On two former occasions, this court has considered the dutiability of birdseeds similar to those here involved. In Woodhull v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 288, T.D. 42471, niger seed, used for bird feed, was imported, and was classified for duty under paragraph 762 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which paragraph was substantially the sanrn [94]*94as paragraph 764 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The importer claimed the se.ed to be free of duty as a vegetable substance under paragraph 1622, which was identical with paragraph 1722 of the Tariff Act of 1930, or that the seed was dutiable as a not enumerated unmanufactured article under paragraph-1459 of the said Tariff Act of 1922.

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

Related

Woodhull v. United States
15 Ct. Cust. 288 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 C.C.P.A. 90, 1934 CCPA LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hinton-ccpa-1934.