General
UNITED STATES v. GOLDBERG
139 F. 706·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1904
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
UNITED STATES v. GOLDBERG.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 21, 1904.)
No. 3,729.
Customs Duties — Classification—Cameos—Imitation Precious Stones.
Held, that paste cameos, in imitation of shell cameos, which imitate certain descriptions of precious stones, are dutiahle as imitation precious stones under paragraph 435, Schedule N, § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1676].
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers. ‘
The proceedings in this case were brought by the United States to secure a review of a decision of the Board of General Appraisers (G. A. 5,825, T. D. 25,713), which had sustained a protest of Morris Goldberg against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The opinion filed by the board is as follows:
Sharretts, General Appraiser. The merchandise in question consists of cameos made of paste, which the appraiser reports to be imitations of shell cameos. Duty was assessed thereon at 45 per cent, ad valorem under the provision of paragraph 112, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, Schedule B, § 1, c. 11, 30 Stat. 158 [U. S. Gomp. St. 1901, p. 1635], for manufactures of paste. The alternative contention of the importer is that the merchandise is imitative of precious stones, and as such is dutiable at 20 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 435, Schedule N, § 1, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1676]. The board held in G. A. 5,763, T. D. 25,512, that shell was not a precious stone, hence shell cameos were not dutiable as precious stones; but in this decision the conclusion was reached that the shell cameos in question imitated certain descriptions of precious stones. In the present case we find the articles in question are imitations of precious stones, composed of paste, not exceeding one inch in dimensions, not engraved, painted, or otherwise ornamented or decorated. The claim in the protest that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 435 is sustained, and the collector’s decision is reversed.
Charles Duane Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Comstock & Washburn, for importers.
[MAJORITY — PLATT, District Judge.]
PLATT, District Judge.
Decision of the Board of General Appraisers affirmed.