Vandiver v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 194, 1911 WL 19821, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 18
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJanuary 11, 1911
DocketNo. 399
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 1 Ct. Cust. 194 (Vandiver 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
Vandiver v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. 194, 1911 WL 19821, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 18 (ccpa 1911).

Opinion

Hunt, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court;

The appellant, John L. Vandiver, imported certain boxes, which were classified under the provision in paragraph 459 of the tariff act of 1897 as smokers' articles. Duty was assessed at 60 per cent ad valorem. Appellant also imported certain other articles, which were classified under paragraphs 96 and 100 of the aforesaid tariff [195]*195law as decorated china and decorated glass, respectively, and duty thereon was assessed at 60 per cent ad valorem. The importer protested, alleging that the boxes were dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 208 of the tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of wood, and at 35 per cent, under paragraph 450 of said act, as manufactures of leather, and that the articles classified as decorated china and decorated glass were dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 193, as manufactures of metal.

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the importers’ protest as to certain articles illustrated by item 3101, Exhibit 8; item 2839, Exhibit 10; item 3146, Exhibit 9; and item 2851, Exhibit 12, of the decorated china and decorated glass importations, but overruled the protest as to all other items. Thereafter a rehearing was granted, and as a result, the Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest as to certain bone charms, items 3162 and 3163, Exhibit 1, but overruled it in all other respects. The effect of the final decision of the board was to reaffirm the decision originally made, except as to the bone charms.

We quote the provisions of the tariff act of 1897, which are material to the case:

Par. 96. All other china, * * * and crockery ware, and manufactures thereof, or of which the same is the component material of chief value, by whatever name known, not specially provided for in this act, if * * * decorated * * * in any manner. * * *
Par. 100. Glass bottles, decanters, or other vessels or articles of glass, * * * decorated, * * * and any articles of which such glass is the component material of chief value. * * *
Par. 193. Articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, lead, copper, nickel, pewter, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, aluminum or other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured. * * *
Par. 208. * * * Manufactures of wood, or of which wood is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act. * * *
Par. 450. Manufacture's of leather, * * * or of which these substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act. * * *
Par. 459. * * * And all smokers’ articles whatsoever, not specially provided for in this act, including cigarette books, cigarette book covers, pouches for smoking or chewing tobacco, and cigarette paper in all forms. * * *

Some of the articles are cedar boxes, plain and decorated, which were invoiced as bonbon boxes, jewelry boxes, card boxes, etc. The appellant claims that such boxes are not smokers’ articles, but are dutiable at 35 per cent as manufactures of wood under paragraph 208, heretofore quoted.

The boxes used as exhibits, and said to be samples, are made of cedar with brass trimmings. Some of them are about 8-J inches long by about 6 inches in-width; others are 4 by 8 inches. Upon the cover of one of the larger boxes the word “Cigars” appears in brass script. [196]*196Another exhibit of about the same size as the box just referred to, and made generally in the same way, has no word or letters upon it, but has a fancy picture of an English stagecoach. There is one smaller box, also made of cedar with metal bindings and leather coverings. Upon one of the smaller boxes the word “Cigarettes ” appears in brass script upon the cover; upon another there is a small fancy picture and no lettering. The boxes are all of the same general character, the larger ones being identical in construction.

In the larger boxes, those marked “Cigars,” as well as those with pictures but no words, there are sliding partitions, which one of the witnesses said enabled two brands of cigars, or cigars and cigarettes, to be kept in the same box. The witness said, howéver, that in the boxes which had no lettering upon the outside the partition was not for the same purpose as in the boxes marked “Cigars,” and that the unmarked boxes had been sold for jewelry boxes, stationery, and papeteries,- “also for cigarette boxes, if they are bought for that purpose.” Witness said that in his store all the “wood goods” were kept together, whether the covers were for jewelry or cigars. He also said that while cigar boxes were sometimes lined with porcelain, zinc, copper, and wood, cedar was the wood generally used for cigar boxes, and he admitted that possibly three out of live boxes such as those with cedar partitions and marked “Cigars” were sold for cigar boxes, while the smaller ones, not marked, were sold for numerous purposes, but generally for holding cigarettes, although boxes with metal trimmings, like one of the smaller size not marked, were more frequently sold for jewelry; that if asked for fancy boxes, any of the boxes not marked “Cigars” or “Cigarettes” would be shown.

An examiner of merchandise at the port of New York, also called by the importers, testified that he had looked at the samples as represented by the boxes, and that the practice was to return such articles as smokers’ articles. He gave it as his opinion that wood was the chief component value of all the boxes except one of the smaller ones, of which metal was the chief component value.

The articles of bronze and glass and bronze and china are inkstands and boxes suitable for stamps, bonbons, pen trays, etc. The evidence concerning these is that the component material of chief value is the metal; one witness, an examiner of merchandise at Philadelphia, saying that the value of the metal was two-thirds of the value of the whole.

W. M. Stewart, a salesman in a firm which imports stationery, fancy goods, smokers’ boxes and trays, desk sets, and things pertaining to the fancy-stationery business, testified that the several exhibits, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, represented items covered by the invoice. Exhibit 8 is a glass inkstand decorated with metal top and bindings. Exhibit 9 is a small glass tray, fitting into a stand made of delicate brass. ■ Exhibit 10 is a decorated china penholder tray, with elab[197]*197orate bronze mountings, suitable for a writing desk. Exhibit 11 is a glass stamp box with a brass lid, the whole fitting into a brass stand. Exhibit 12 is a circular glass box, 3jc inches in diameter, divided into four compartments by glass partitions. The box has a glass cover, upon which appears metal ornamentation; the cover being fastened to a band cemented to the box itself. The sides are also ornamented with metal, the whole box resting upon small brass supports attached to a metal band surrounding the base of the box.

It is very plain that the boxes marked “Cigars” and “Cigarettes” are intended for cigars and cigarettes, respectively. Having a cedar box of appropriate size and marked “Cigars” or “Cigarettes,” at once we associate the article with its usefulness for persons who smoke. Indeed, its chief purpose is so apparent that there is no real room for discussion. It is designed for smokers, is commonly used for their convenience, and is a smoker’s article. Steinhardt

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

Related

Anderson v. United States
65 Cust. Ct. 408 (U.S. Customs Court, 1970)
A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 205 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Authentic Furniture Products v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 11 (U.S. Customs Court, 1965)
Clayton Chemical & Packaging Co. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 428 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
Sears v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 5 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
British Overseas Airways Corp. v. United States
34 Cust. Ct. 411 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
Pressner v. United States
31 Cust. Ct. 32 (U.S. Customs Court, 1953)
Karavan Trading Corp. v. United States
22 Cust. Ct. 44 (U.S. Customs Court, 1949)
Scott v. United States
14 Cust. Ct. 1 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)
Good Neighbor Imports, Inc. v. United States
13 Cust. Ct. 186 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)
United States v. Hillier's Son Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 216 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
Keller Co. v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 428 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1926)
United States v. Dunhill
13 Ct. Cust. 310 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
United States v. Stone
13 Ct. Cust. 233 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
United States v. National Importing Co.
12 Ct. Cust. 186 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1924)
Bischoff v. United States
7 Ct. Cust. 138 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1916)
United States v. MacNaughton
5 Ct. Cust. 114 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)
United States v. Owen
4 Ct. Cust. 480 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)
Dale v. United States
2 Ct. Cust. 384 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Ct. Cust. 194, 1911 WL 19821, 1911 CCPA LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandiver-v-united-states-ccpa-1911.