Vandegrift v. United States

15 Ct. Cust. 165, 1927 WL 29488, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 91
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 19, 1927
DocketNo. 2841
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 15 Ct. Cust. 165 (Vandegrift v. United States) 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
Vandegrift v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. 165, 1927 WL 29488, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 91 (ccpa 1927).

Opinions

Hatfield, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Merchandise known as “fish-spine beads,” and consisting of cylinders, perforated concentrically, with one base convexed and the other concaved so that the convexity of one cylinder fits into the concavity of another, used to insulate electrical wires, and composed in chief value of talc or steatite, vitrified, was assessed for duty by the collector at 60 per centum ad valorem as articles of vitrified or semi-vitrified ware under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1922, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

Par. 212. China, porcelain, and other vitrified wares, including chemical porcelain ware and chemical stoneware, composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which when broten shows a vitrified or vitreous, or semivitrified or semi-vitreous fracture, and all bisque and parian wares, including clock cases with or without movements, plaques, pill tiles, ornaments, toys, charms, vases, statues, statuettes, mugs, cups, steins, lamps, and all other articles composed wholly or in chief value of such ware, plain white or plain brown, not painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or ornamented or decorated in any manner, and manufactures in chief value of such ware not specially provided for, 60 per centum ad valorem; * * *

The articles are claimed to be dutiable, alternatively, as “beads” under paragraph 1403 at 36 per centum ad valorem, or as manufactures of talc or steatite at 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 209.

Paragraphs 1403 and 209, respectively, read as follows:

Par. 1403. Spangles and beads, including bugles, but not including beads of ivory or imitation pearl beads and beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, 35 .per centum ad valorem; beads of ivory, 45 per centum ad valorem; fabrics and articles not ornamented with beads, spangles, or bugles, nor embroi[167]*167dered, tamboured, appliquéd, or scalloped, composed wholly or in chief value of beads or spangles other than imitation pearl beads and beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, 60 per centum ad valorem; imitation pearl beads of all kinds and shapes, of whatever material composed, strung or loose, mounted or unmounted, 60 per centum ad valorem; all other beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, of all kinds and shapes, of whatever material composed, strung or loose, mounted or unmounted, 45 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article composed wholly or in chief value of any of the foregoing beads or spangles shall pay duty at a less rate than is imposed in any paragraph of this act upon such articles without such beads or spangles.
Pak. 209. Talc, steatite or soapstone, and French chalk, crude and unground, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound; ground, washed, powdered, or pulverized (except toilet preparations), 25 per centum ad valorem; cut or sawed, or in blanks, crayons, cubes, disks, or other forms, 1 cent per pound; manufactures (except toilet preparations), of which talc, steatite or soapstone, or French chalk is the component material of chief value, wholly or partly finished, and not specially provided for, if not decorated, 35 per centum ad valorem; if decorated, 45 per ■centum ad valorem.

The record contains the following stipulation:

It is hereby stipulated by and between the attorneys for the importers and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise covered by the above-named protests, represented by the samples herewith submitted marked “Exhibit I,” consists of goods invoiced as fish spine beads, designed and ■used for insulating purposes, and composed in chief value of talc or steatite. It is further stipulated that the beads in question are articles or manufactures ■composed wholly or in chief value of vitrified or semivitrified ware.
Said protests are submitted for decision upon this stipulation, including all •of the papers in the case.

The court below held, that as “there is nothing about the beads imported in the cases at bar which indicates that they were designed ■to be used in any way for decorative purposes or to be made pleasing to the eye, but rather designed only for use in insulating wire, * * they are not provided for in paragraph 1403 as “beads.” The court also held that the provision for articles composed wholly -or in chief value of “vitrified ware” contained in paragraph 212 more aptly described the merchandise than the provision for “manufactures (except toilet preparations), of which talc, steatite * * * •is the component material of chief value, wholly or partly finished, .and not specially provided for, if not decorated.”

The protests were accordingly overruled.

It is claimed by appellant: That the merchandise is dutiable as “beads” under paragraph 1403; that the term “beads” covers all ■beads, including those used for utilitarian purposes; but that, if the .merchandise is not dutiable as “beads,” it is more specifically provided for in paragraph 209 as manufactures of talc or steatite, than .‘in paragraph 212 as articles composed of vitrified or semivitrified ware.

[168]*168The Government contends that the provision for “beads” in paragraph 1403 was intended to cover only such articles as were designed for purposes of ornamentation and decoration; and that, as the involved articles were not so designed and are not ornamental in character, they are not dutiable under paragraph 1403.

It is urged that, as these articles are finished manufactures of talc or steatite, vitrified, they are more specifically provided for as articles of vitrified ware than as manufactures of talc or steatite.

The first provision of paragraph 1403 covers “Spangles and beads, including bugles” at 35 per centum ad valorem. Beads of ivory, imitation pearl beads, and beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones are excluded therefroim' Beads of ivory are named in the second provision at a higher rate of duty. The third provision covers “fabrics and articles not ornamented with beads, spangles, or bugles, * * * composed wholly or in chief value of beads or spangles other than imitation pearl beads and beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones.” (Italics not quoted.) The fourth provision covers “all other beads in imitation of precious or semiprecious stones, of all kinds and shapes, of whatever material composed, strung or loose, mounted or unmounted.”

It will be observed that all of the articles named in the paragraph preceding the proviso clause are ornamental in character and are undoubtedly chiefly used for ornamental or decorative purposes. Moreover, the Congress has plainly indicated, by the language “fabrics and articles not ornamented with beads” in the third provision of the paragraph, that it was intending to provide for beads ornamental and decorative in character. (Italics not quoted.)

Paragraph 1430 contains a provision for fabrics and articles’“ornamented with beads, bugles, or spangles.” So again we find the Congress associating beads with bugles and spangles and characterizing them as ornamental articles.

A bugle is “a tube-shaped glass bead, commonly black, used for ornamenting garments.” (Funk & Wagnalls New Standard. Dictionary.)

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

Related

Mitsubishi International Corp. v. United States
69 Cust. Ct. 121 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
General Ceramics Corp. v. United States
49 C.C.P.A. 21 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
General Ceramics Corp. v. United States
46 Cust. Ct. 37 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
S. H. Kress & Co. v. United States
37 Cust. Ct. 291 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Walco Bead Co. v. United States
36 Cust. Ct. 162 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Brier Manufacturing Co. v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 197 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Leonard Levin Co. v. United States
27 C.C.P.A. 101 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1939)
United States v. A. W. Fenton Co.
16 Ct. Cust. 418 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Ct. Cust. 165, 1927 WL 29488, 1927 CCPA LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandegrift-v-united-states-ccpa-1927.