United States v. Myers & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 541, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 21
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 23, 1915
DocketNo. 1476
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 5 Ct. Cust. 541 (United States v. Myers & 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. Myers & Co., 5 Ct. Cust. 541, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 21 (ccpa 1915).

Opinion

Martin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The present merchandise consists of sawed and dressed boards which were imported under the tariff act of 1913.

[542]*542The collector assessed the same with duty at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 176 for manufactures of wood not specially provided for.

The importers filed their protest against the assessment, claiming free entry for the lumber as boards not further manufactured than sawed, planed, and tongued and grooved under paragraph 647 of the act. .

The protest was submitted upon evidence to the Board of General Appraisers and was sustained, from which decision the Government now appeals.

The following is a copy of the two paragraphs of the act of 1913 which are thus brought into question:

176. House or cabinet furniture wholly or in chief value of wood, wholly or partly finished, and manufactures of wood or hark, or of which wood or hark is the component material of chief value, not specially pro, ided for in this section, fifteen per centum ad valorem.
(Free List.) 647. Wood: Logs, timber, round, unmanufactured, hewn or sawed, sided or squared; pulp woods, kindling wood, firewood, hop poles, hoop poles, fence posts, handle holts, shingle holts, gun blocks for gunstocks rough hewn or sawed, or planed on one side; hubs for wheels, posts, heading bolts, stave holts, last blocks, wagon blocks, oar blocks, heading blocks, and all like blocks or sticks, rough hewn, sawed, or bored; sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber, not further manufactured than sawed, planed, and tongued and grooved; clapboards, laths, pickets, palings, sta.cs, shingles, sliip timber, ship planking, broom handles, sawdust, and wood flour; all the foregoing not specially provided for in this section.

The present issue, therefore, is whether the boards in question have been further manufactured than sawed, planed, and tongued and grooved. If this question be answered in the negative, then the importation is concedodly entitled to free entry.

The imported boards vary somewhat in dimensions, but in a' general way they may be said to be about 12 feet in length, 6 inches in width, and 1 inch in thickness. They consist of two classes. One class is designed for use as inside ceiling; ■ these boards are tongued and grooved, and have plain smooth sides except for two half-round beads which extend the length of the boards, one at the edge and the' other midway between the two edges. These beads are ornamental only; when the hoards are in position each has the appearance of being in fact two narrow boards instead of a single wide one. The other class of imported boards is called “Novelty” siding, and is chiefly used as siding for frame buildings. These boards ordinarily have no ornamental beads upon their surface like those just described, nor are they tongued and grooved. Their edges are designed to overlap one another when in position, and for this purpose the lower edge of the upper board is cut to a rabbet, while the upper edge of the lower board is cut with a concave or cove effect so that it may fit into the rabbet. The outer side of these boards is [543]*543generally smooth and level, except for a so-called cove or concave cut which extends for a distance from the edge of the board. The object of the cove is thus seen to be chiefly utilitarian, since it forms part of the rabbet joint; nevertheless it is cut so as to be partly ornamental also. In some instances boards of this land.carry also the ornamental beads above described; in such case they are treated in this case as belonging to the class of beaded lumber rather than that of ordinary Novelty siding.

The two classes of boards just above described were alike refused free entry under paragraph 647, supra, and wore both assessed with duty as manufactures of wood under paragraph 176, supra. Nevertheless the court is advised that the Government does not contend for the assessment of the ordinary Novelty'siding, but limits its present claim to the beaded lumber alone. This statement is authorized in part by the ruling of the Treasury Department (T. D. 34178), issued February 11, 1914, in which-the paragraphs in question were discussed, with the following conclusion:

While it is difficult to establish a well-defined lino of demarcation between lumber which is dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 176 of the tariff act and lumber which falls within the' pro', isions of paragraph 647 of the said act, the department is of the opinion, in -view of the decisions cited and giving due consideration to the purpose of the present tariff act, which is to reduce duties, that flooring, although in addition to being planed and tongued and groen ed, is plowed on the underside to insure a perfect fit to the board as flooring, is not excluded from classification under paragraph 647. The department is also of the opinion that ordinary Novelty siding, ordinary window-parting strips, outside baseboards, ordinary siding, and other articles which are not molded or beaded are entitled to admission free of duty under paragraph 647.
Articles such as sash rail, stair rail, crown molding, nosing, molded baseboard, beaded Novelty siding, O. G. molding, signboard molding, and similar.articles, when beaded or molded, are, in the opinion of the department, properly dutiable as manufactures of wood at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 176 of the tariff act.

The foregoing statement therefore limits the present issue to the question whether the beading which appears upon the ceiling lumber and also upon certain of the Novelty siding, withdraws such merchandise from the classification of lumber “not further manufactured than sawed, planed, and tongued and grooved.” In seeking to answer this question recourse may be had first to the testimony of the witnesses, and next to the definitions given by the lexicographers.

According to the testimony, such lumber as is herein involved is first sawed into boards of suitable dimensions. The boards are then run through a machine which is called a planer and matcher. This machine operates four rotating cylinders, each of which is equipped with certain cutting knives. The four cylinders are set in a rectangular position, and as the boards are fed into them the knives dress the-[544]*544four sides of tbe boards at tbe same time and by tbe same operation. Tbe knives are removable from tbe cylinders; tbey come in many different shapes, wbicb may be diversely adjusted therein. Therefore, as a board passes through the cylinders the two edges may be tongued and grooved or planed smooth, while at the same time the two sides may be planed' entirely smooth, or partly smooth but with the cove effect and either with or without the bead effect. That is to say, it depends upon the adjustment of the knives upon the cylinders as to the form of the four surfaces of a board when it issues from the cutting cylinders, for the knives may be set to suit the various purposes of the operator. The operating machine is called a planer and matcher because of its four cutting cylinders, whereby the edges of boards are “matched” at the same time that the sides are dressed. The edges are said to be “matched” whether they are planed perfectly smooth or are rabbeted or are tongued and grooved.

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

Related

Shades, Inc. v. United States
4 Ct. Int'l Trade 113 (Court of International Trade, 1982)
B. Axelrod & Co. v. United States
70 Cust. Ct. 117 (U.S. Customs Court, 1973)
A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States
61 Cust. Ct. 66 (U.S. Customs Court, 1968)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
52 Cust. Ct. 204 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
Best Moulding Corp. v. United States
51 C.C.P.A. 7 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)
Best Moulding Corp. v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 102 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
C. S. Emery & Co. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 7 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Protest 84785-K 12570 of Jensen
13 Cust. Ct. 303 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)
United States v. Emery
18 C.C.P.A. 208 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Carr v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 35 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Ct. Cust. 541, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-myers-co-ccpa-1915.