MIDDLETON & CO. v. UNITED STATES

MIDDLETON & CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. December 4, 1906.) No. 68 (3,985). Customs Duties—Classification—Abeowkoot—Stakch. • . The.provision in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11; § 1, Schedule G, par. 285, .30 Stat, . 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1653], for “preparations * * • fit for use as starch,” held to include arrowroot in its starchy form. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In the decision below the Circuit Court affirmed without opinion a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (G. A. 5,995 [T. D. 26,234]), in which a majority of the Board affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The article in controversy wps described .by the Board as being commercially lino.wn as arrowroot, consisting of a fine floury form of starch extracted from the tubers or foots of 'the arrowroot plant, and being chiefly used for infants’ food and'to some extent in making medicinal preparations. The Board further stated that it was chemically a stareh, and that, though there was no evidence that, it is-used for laundry purposes, it appeared that it might be so used. . . It was classified under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. • 285, 30 Stat. 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1653], relating to “starch, including: all preparations, from whatever substance produced, fit for use as starch,” and was claimed by the importers to be free of duty under paragraph 478 (30 Stat. 195 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1680]), as “arrowroot in its natural state and' not manufactured,” of to' be dutiable under section 6 (30 Stat. 203 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693]), as an unenumerated manufactured article.-. These contentions were overruled-by the Board;, the article being held; dutiable .¿s classified, by similitude, under section 7 of said act. On ap-. peal from.the Board the only contention ma.de was that assessment should, have been under said section 6.' In the Circuit Court the Board’s decision was1 affirmed by consent; without" argument. Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for the importers. D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and COXE, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. In affirming the decision of the court below and of the Board of General Appraisers, we do not mean to decide that the importations in'controversy'Járrowroot in its starchy form) were, not' dutiable directly under paragraph 285 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c.11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 173 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1653], as a “preparation fit for use as starch.” The Board held them dutiable under that paragraph indirectly’by similitude. Whether tins reasoning was sound'or not,"a correct result has' been reached. ■'