Wilson v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 255, 1915 WL 20776, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 90
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 21, 1915
DocketNo. 1521
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 6 Ct. Cust. 255 (Wilson 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
Wilson v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. 255, 1915 WL 20776, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 90 (ccpa 1915).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Jacquard figured nettings, flouncings, edgings, insertings, Valen-ciennes edgings, and Valenciennes headings, conceded to be wholly or in chief value of cotton, were assessed for duty at 60 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 358 of the tariff act of 1913 which reads as follows:

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; * * * and all other articles or fabrics made wholly or in part of lace or of imitation lace of any land; * * * edgings, insertings, * * * nets, nettings, * * * flouncings, * * *; all of the foregoing of whatever yarns, threads, or filaments composed, 60 per centum ad volorem.

The importers protested, first, that the merchandise was lace window curtains, pillow shams, and bed sets, finished or unfinished, made of cotton or other vegetable fiber on the Nottingham lace curtain machine and dutiable under paragraph 265 at 35, 40, or 45 per cent ad valorem according to count of points or spaces; second, that the merchandise was plain gauze or leno woven cotton nets or nettings, dutiable as cotton cloth at 30 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 252; third, that the importation was composed of articles made from cotton cloth or manufactures of cotton, cotton chief value, not specially provided for, dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 266; fourth, that the merchandise was either Jacquard figured upholstery goods of cotton, dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem, or other Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton, dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 258; fifth, that the merchandise was imported in vessels registered under the laws of the United States and that they were therefore, in accordance with section 4, paragraph J, subsection 7 of the tariff act of 1913, entitled to a discount of 5 per cent from the duties imposed.

[257]*257Paragraphs 265, 252, 266, and 258, and section 4, paragraph J, subsection 7, in so far as pertinent, read as follows:

265. Lace window curtains, pillow shams, and bed sets, finished or unfinished, made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine, and composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, when counting not more than six points or spaces between the warp threads to the inch, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; when counting more than six and not more than eight points or spaces to the inch, forty per centum ad valorem; when counting nine or more points or spaces to the inch, forty-five per centum ad valorem.
252. * * * Cotton cloth when bleached, * * * woven figured, * * * containing yam, the average number of which does not exceed number nine, ten per centum ad valorem; * * * exceeding number ninety-nine, thirty per centum ad valorem; plain gauze or leno woven cotton nets or nettings shall be classified for duty as cotton cloth.
266. All articles made from cotton cloth, whether finished or unfinished, and all manufactures of cotton or of which cotton is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty per centum ad valorem.
258. Curtains, table covers, and all articles manufactured of cotton chenille, or of which cotton chenille is the component material of chief value, tapestries, and other Jacquard-figured upholstery goods, composed wholly or in chief value of cotton or other vegetable fiber; any of the foregoing, in the piece or otherwise, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; all other Jacquard figured manufactures of - cotton or of which cotton is the component material of chief value, thirty per centum ad valorem.
J. Subsection 7. That a discount of five per centum on all duties imposed by this act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall be so construed as to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of any treaty concluded between the United States and any foreign nation.

The Board of General Appraisers overruled all of the claims of the protest except the fifth, which was sustained on a stipulation between the importers and the Government that the goods, in question were imported in a. vessel of American registry. The record does not disclose that any appeal was taken from the decision of the board other than that perfected by the importers. In support of their appeal the importers contend that the nettings, flouncings, edgings, insertings, and headings are Jacquard figured and that they are more specifically provided for by paragraph 258 than by paragraph 358, the paragraph under which they were classified and assessed for duty.

The samples and the evidence in the case, we think, establish clearly and unmistakably that the nettings, flouncings, edgings, insertings, and headings involved in this case are in truth and in fact either laces, lace articles, or articles or fabrics composed wholly or in part of lace. On the hearing before the board the importers contended that the goods and particularly the headings were not so regarded in the trade. The proof adduced, however, at the hearing in support of that contention can hardly be considered as satisfactory when due consideration is given to the following extracts taken from the testimony of the importers’ own witnesses.

[258]*258Joseph A. Williams:

Q. Will you select from the group of samples those that are nettings? — [Witness selects samples.] A. Right here.
Q. Well, now are these invoiced as either nets or nettings? — A. Net, nettings, or 42-inch all-overs.
* « * * ' * • * *
Q. (By Mr. Baldwin.) By all-overs you mean all over lace, do you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. Webster.) Now, there are other goods on the invoices that are laces, are there? — A. Yes.
Q. Will you select the samples that represent the laces? [Witness selects samples.]
Q. Those that you select now, what do you call those, laces or lace edgings? — A. Lace edgings.
*******
Q. Now, what are those two items 26184 and 26187? — A. 187 is gold insertion and 184 is gold lace.
Mr. Webster. Mark those Exhibit 4.
Q. What is the item 26369? — A. Chentille insertion.
Mr. Webster Mark that Exhibit 5.
Q. Now, what are these items 18183, 6919, 6178, 6388? — A. Val insertions.
Mr. Webster Mark those collective Exhibit 6
Q. Now items 5592, 6177, 6723. 16160? — A. Val edgings
Mr. Webster Mark those collective Exhibit 7.
Q. Items 6425, 6823, 6291, what, are those? — A. Val headings.
Mr. Webster Those are offered as collective Exhibit 8.
Q. On and before October 3, 1913, what was the general name by which these three samples marked “Exhibit 8” were known in the trade? — A. Val headings.

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

Related

Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United States
26 Cust. Ct. 251 (U.S. Customs Court, 1951)
Benziger Bros. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 16 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Louis G. Rojas Superior Food Products Co. v. United States
21 Cust. Ct. 68 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Sardik, Inc. v. United States
8 Cust. Ct. 400 (U.S. Customs Court, 1942)
United States v. Castle & Overton, Inc.
18 C.C.P.A. 21 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 449 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
Burr & Hardwick v. United States
9 Ct. Cust. 71 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1919)
Levi v. United States
7 Ct. Cust. 447 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ct. Cust. 255, 1915 WL 20776, 1915 CCPA LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-united-states-ccpa-1915.