BORGFELDT et al. v. UNITED STATES

BORGFELDT et al. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. February 16, 1897. Customs Duties — Classification—Glass Atomizers. Atomizers, consisting' of ornamented glass vessels, with metal and rubber tops which are essential parts of the articles, the glass being the most valuable component, are dutiable under paragraph 102 of the tariff act of 1894 as manufactures of glass or of which glass is the component material of chief value, and not as articles of glass or glass bottles, under paragraphs 88-90. This was an application by George Borgfeldt: & Co. for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers affirming the decision of the collector of the port of New York as to the rate of duty on certain atomizers, consisting of bottles or vessels of glass, cut or ornamented, and surmounted with a metal top to which is attached a rubber bulb. Comstock & Brown, for importers. Henry S. Sedgwick, U. S. Atty. [MAJORITY — TOWNSEND, District Judge] TOWNSEND, District Judge (orally). The articles in question are atomizers. They were assessed for duty under paragraphs 88, 89, and 90 of the tariff act of 1894 as “articles of glass, — cut or ornamented,” or “glass bottles.” The importer protests, claiming that they are dutiable, under paragraph 102 of said act, as manufactures of glass, or of which glass is the component material of chief value. Inasmuch as the earlier paragraphs of said act contain exhaustive provisions for specific articles of glass, and inasmuch as India rubber and metal are substantial essential elements in the construction of these completed articles whereof glass is the component material of chief value, I think they should have been classified under the specific provisions of paragraph 102, which was apparently inserted in order to provide a different rate of duty for a great variety of articles made in part of glass and in part of other materials. The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.