General
STEINHARDT et al. v. UNITED STATES
92 F. 139·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1898
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
STEINHARDT et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 22, 1898.)
No. 1,945.
Customs Duties — Oi.arsification— Buaok-IIkaiusd Piss.
Black-beaded pins were dutiable under paragraph 200 of the act of 1890, as “pins, metallic,” and not under paragraph 108, as manufactures of glass, or of which glass is the component material of chief valúe
This was an application by A. Steinhardt & Bros, for a review of a decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of certain imported black-headed pins.
Albert Comstock, for importers.
J. T. Van Ilensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.
As to interpretation of commercial and trade terms, see note to Dennison Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 18 C. C. A. 545.
[MAJORITY — TOWNSEND, District Judge]
TOWNSEND, District Judge
(orally). The merchandise in question comprises black-headed pins, which were classified for duty under paragraph 108 of the act of 1890, as "manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be the component material of chief value,” and claimed in the protest of the importers to be dutiable under paragraph 200, as “pins, metallic,” at 30 per cent, ad valorem. An examination of the samples 'and the record herein shows, that the merchandise in question dearly Calls within the principle of the case already considered, namely, Worthington v. U. S. (No. 1,792) 90 Fed. 797, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore reversed.