In re Kursheedt Manuf'g Co.

In re Kursheedt Manuf’g Co. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. March 9, 1892.) 1, Customs Duties&emdash;Administrative Customs Act .Tune 10,1890&emdash;Finding or Board or United States Generad Appraisers. in a case arising under section 14, and brought for review before the United States circuit court under section 15 of tho administrativo customs act of Juno 10, 1890, (chapter 407, 20 St. U. S. p. 131,) a finding upon a question of fact by the board of United States general appraisers, in the absence of any further or different testimony than that returned to that- court by that board, will not bo disturbed, but will bo affirmed, by that court. 2. Same&emdash;Tarim? Act Oct. 1, 1890&emdash;Vedvutkdn Dress Facings. Articles composed of cotton, which arc made from colored cotton velvet or velveteen by cutting the same bias into narrow s1 rips or short lengths, and lapping over the ends of such strips, and then sewing together such ends so lapped, and which are principally used for facing skirts of dresses, and not for trimming dresses, and are known commercially, not as trimmings, but as velveteen dross facings, are not dutiable at the rate of 14 cents ner squaro yard, and 20 per centum ad valorem, under tho provision for “velvets, * * * velveteens, * * * and all pile fabrics composed of cotton, * * * colored, ” contained in paragraph 350 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, (chapter 1244, 23 St. U. S. p. 567,) or at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem as trimmings composed of cotton, under the provision for such trimmings contained in paragraph 373 of the same tariff act, hut are dutiable at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem, as “manufactures of cotton, ” undertha provision for such manufactures contained in paragraph 855 of the same tariff act. At Law. During the year 1891 the Kursheedt Manufacturing Company imported from a foreign country into the United States at this port certain merchandise, consisting of so-called bias velveteen dress facings. This merchandise, having been returned by the local appraiser as colored cotton velvet, cut bias into strips one and one-eighth inches wide, and sewed together, and intended for binding, facing, or trimming dresses, was classified as colored velveteen or velvet, composed of cotton, under the provision for such velveteens and velvets contained in paragraph 350 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, (chapter 1244, 26 St. U. S. p. 567,) and duty at the rate of 14 cents per square yard, and 20 per cent, ad valorem, as prescribed by that paragraph, was exacted thereon by the collector of customs at this port. Against this classification and this exaction the importers protested, claiming that this merchandise was dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent, ad valorem, as a manufacture of cotton, under the provision for such manufactures contained in paragraph 355 of the same tariff act. The board of general appraisers to which the invoice of this merchandise, and all the papers and exhibits connected therewith, were transmitted by the said collector pursuant to section 14 of the administrative customs act of June 10, 1890, (chapter 407, 26 St. U. S. p. 131,) after taking testimony, found, among other things: (1) That this merchandise w'as principally used for facing the skirts of dresses, (and not for trimming dresses;) (2) that it was composed of cotton; (3) that it was commercially known as “velveteen dress facings;” (4) that it was made from cotton velvet or velveteen; (5) that it differed from cotton velvet ribbons and cotton velvet piece goods, it having been cut bias into narrow strips of short lengths, and the ends thereof lapped over and sewed together, thus rendering square-yard measurement difficult, if not. almost impossible; (6) that it was not commercially known as trimmings, nor was it chiefly used as trimmings; (7) that it was not dutiable as velvets, velveteens, or other pile fabrics composed of cotton, under the provisions for such velvets, velveteens, and pile fabrics, contained in said paragraph 350, or, as claimed by the said collector, if not so dutiable, at the rate of 60 per centum ad valorem, as trimmings composed pf cotton, under the provision for- such trimmings contained in paragraph 373, but was dutiable as 'a manufacture of cotton at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem, under -the provision for such manufactures contained in said paragraph 355, as claimed by the appellant. From this decision of the board of general appraisers the collector, pursuant to section 15 of the said administrative customs act, appealed to the United States circuit court for a review of the questions of law and fact involved therein. The case was tried upon the return made by the board of general appraisers. Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellant. Alexander E. Kursheedt, for appellees. [MAJORITY — Lacombe, Circuit Judge.] Lacombe, Circuit Judge. I do not think that I should interfere with the finding of the board of general appraisers. This is a case where, under the old practice, I should send it to the jury to determine whether, by the ordinary processes of manufacture, the article had been advanced, in the meaning as understood in trade and commerce, outside of and ’beyond the group of articles included in paragraph 850; and their verdict, on such-evidence as there is here, I should not disturb, whatever it might be. Under these circumstances, I shall not disturb the finding of the board of general appraisers. Decision affirmed.