United States v. Veit, Son & Co.

8 Ct. Cust. 290, 1918 WL 18155, 1918 CCPA LEXIS 11
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedFebruary 8, 1918
DocketNo. 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 8 Ct. Cust. 290 (United States v. Veit, Son & 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. Veit, Son & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. 290, 1918 WL 18155, 1918 CCPA LEXIS 11 (ccpa 1918).

Opinion

MaetiN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal, as impliedly limited by appellant’s brief, relates to certain trimmings, some of which are fringes composed in chief value of bullions, the others being narrow strips composed in. chief value of lame or lahn. It may-here be stated that,-.“lame”,and “lahn” are simply different names for the same article, the one word issuing from the French, the other from the German .language. -The goods were imported under the tariff act of-1913.

The collector assessed duty upon the merchandise at the rate of 60 per centum ad valorem, under the provision for “trimmings * * * of.whatever yarns, threads, or .filaments composed,” contained in paragraph 358 of the act. . The importers protested, claiming the goods to be dutiable at the. rate of 15 per centum ad valorem as manufactures in chief value of wire under paragraph 114 of the act; or at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem, under the general provision for manufactures of metal in paragraph 167; or at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem under the provision for “articles made wholly or in chief value .of tinsel wire, lame or láhn, * * * bullions, or metal threads,” contained, in paragraph 150.

The Board of General Appraisers, considered the case upon the evidence, and overruled the claim of.the importers for an assessment of the merchandise under paragraph 114, as articles composed in chief value of wire, but sustained the importers’ claim for assessment under the provision for articles composed in chief value- of metal in paragraph 167. The Government appeals from this deei.sion; there is no cross appeal filed by the importers. ,

The three paragraphs in question read as follows:

150. Tinsel wire, lame or lahn, made wholly or in chief value of gold, silver, or other metal, 6 per centum ad valorem;' bullions and metal threads, made wholly or [292]*292in chief value of tinsel wire, lame or lahn, 25 per centum ad valorem; fabrics, ribbons, beltings, toys, or other articles, made wholly or in chief value of tinsel wire, lame or _lahn, or of tinsel wire, lame or lahn, and india rubber, bullions, or metal threads, not specially provided for in this section, 40 per centum ad valorem.
167. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this section; if composed wholly or in part of platinum, gold, or silver, and articles or wares plated with gold or silver, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, 50 per centum ad valorem; if composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other metal, but not plated with gold or silver, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, 20 per centum ad' valorem.
358. Laces, lace window curtains not specially provided for in this section, coach, carriage, and automobile laces, and all lace articles of whatever yarns, threads, or filaments composed; handkerchiefs, napkins, wearing apparel, and all other articles or fabrics made wholly or in part of lace or of imitation lace of any ldnd; embroideries, wearing apparel, handkerchiefs, and all articles or fabrics embroidered in any manner by hand or machinery, whether with a plain or fancy initial, monogram, or otherwise, or tamboured, appliquéd, or scalloped by hand or machinery, any of the foregoing by whatever name known; edgings, insertings, galloons, nets, nettings, veils, veilings, neck rufflings, ruchings, tucldngs, fiouncings, fiutings, quillings, ornaments; braids, loom woven and ornamented in the process of weaving, or made by hand, or on any braid machine, knitting machine, or lace machine, and not specially provided for; trimmings not specially provided for; woven fabrics or articles from which threads have been omitted, drawn, punched, or cut, and with threads introduced after weaving, forming figures or designs, not including straight hemstitching; and articles made in whole or in part of any of the foregoing fabrics or articles; 'all of the foregoing of whatever yarns, threads, or filaments composed, 60 per centum ad valorem.

It will be observed that paragraph 358, supra, provides for "trimmings * * * of whatever yarns, threads, or filaments composed.” It is conceded that the goods in question are trimmings, and that they are composed in chief value of lame or lahn, or of bullions. If therefore lame or lahn, and bullions, may properly be called "yarns, threads, or filaments,” in the tariff sense, then the present merchandise would answer to the description contained in the aforesaid paragraph. And this defines the first question raised bj the present appeal, that is, whether lame or lahn, and bullions, are “yams, threads, or filaments”' within the contemplation of paragraph 358. If they are such, then the merchandise would be dutiable under that paragraph a,s assessed; otherwise the assessment should be held to Be erroneous. Loewenthal v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209-216; T. D. 35464); Siegman & Weil v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 195; T. D. 36506).

The testimony discloses the fact that both lame or lahn, and bullions, begin -their existence in the form of tinsel wire. This is round wire composed principally of copper or brass, and usually coated with a bright metal, such as gold, silver, bi’onze, or foil. The-article in this form is well known under the name of tinsel wire in trade and commerce and also in tariff nomenclature, and is devoted to various distinctive uses.

[293]*293Lame or lahn is produced by drawing the round tinsel wire through metal rollers, whereby it is flattened into various widths. At the same time it is generally subjected to an ornamental corrugating process, or to a coating or coloring process. When thus flattened and corrugated, or coated or colored, the article no longer bears the name of tinsel wire in trade and commerce or in tariff nomenclature, but is known as lame or lahn.

Bullion is produced by subjecting lame or lahn to a twisting process whereby it is permanently brought to a hollow spiral form. ' In this form the article no longer bears the name of lame or lahn in trade and commerce or in tariff nomenclature, but passes under the name of bullion only. When imported into this country it is said to come in lengths of a yard or less.. When applied to use, it is strengthened by means of a core of cotton or other fibrous thread running lengthwise through its center.

The lame or lahn now in question is about one-sixteenth of an inch in width, and is sewed-in folded lengths by means of cotton threads upon one side of narrow strips of cotton netting. The bullions in question serve as pendants upon the fringe. The heading of the fringe is composed of métal threads and lame or lahn, and also- of cotton weft threads which when extended furnish the cores for the bullion pendants.

It may be repeated that in some of the trimmings lame or lahn, and in the others bullion, is the component material of chief value, and the first question to decide is whether these materials are “yarns, threads, or filaments” in the contemplation of paragraph 358, supra. No commercial designation has been alleged or proven in the case; therefore we must accept the common or ordinary signification of the terms in question. The following definitions from approved authorities may be.considered:

Standard Dictionary:

Yarn.—1.

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

Related

Rockwell Import Corp. v. United States
76 Cust. Ct. 262 (U.S. Customs Court, 1976)
New York Merchandise Co. v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 73 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
Chester Tricot Mills, Inc. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 532 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
Robert E. Landweer & Co. v. United States
52 Cust. Ct. 122 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
Gimbel Bros. v. United States
50 C.C.P.A. 23 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1963)
Gimbel Bros. v. United States
48 Cust. Ct. 18 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)
Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 192 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Fernstrom v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 285 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
United States v. Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.
36 C.C.P.A. 64 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1949)
Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc. v. United States
19 Cust. Ct. 83 (U.S. Customs Court, 1947)
L. Mendelson Co. v. United States
9 Cust. Ct. 256 (U.S. Customs Court, 1942)
W. X. Huber Co. v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 140 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
United States v. Field
18 C.C.P.A. 228 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Glemby's Sons Co. v. United States
15 Ct. Cust. 420 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)
United States v. Borgfeldt
14 Ct. Cust. 240 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
Rolland Frères (Inc.) v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 321 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1922)
Isler v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 340 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1922)
Calhoun, Robbins & Co. v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 360 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ct. Cust. 290, 1918 WL 18155, 1918 CCPA LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-veit-son-co-ccpa-1918.