General
GUDEWILL & BUCKNALL v. UNITED STATES; NAIRN LINOLEUM CO. v. SAME
142 F. 214·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
GUDEWILL & BUCKNALL v. UNITED STATES. NAIRN LINOLEUM CO. v. SAME.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 14, 1904.)
Nos. 3,600, 3,601.
Customs Duties — Classification—Ground Cork Refuse — Waste—“Manufactures.”
Small pieces of cork, which have been produced, by grinding the refuse of cork bark for convenience in handling, and which need further preparation before becoming fit for its ultimate use in the manufacture of linoleum, etc., held to be dutiable as waste, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, §1, Schedule N, par. 463, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679], and not as a manufacture of cork under paragraph 448, 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677].
On Application for Review of Decisions of the Board of United United States General Appraisers.
The decisions under review affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on importations by Gudewill & Bucknall and Nairn Linoleum Company. See G. A. 5,692 (T. D. 25,334). The merchandise consisted of small pieces of cork, averaging a little larger in size than an ordinary grain of corn, and is produced by grinding the refuse obtained in trimming cork bark in the process of fitting it for baling. It appeared that the principal object of the grinding was that the merchandise might be more conveniently shipped; that it is used in the manufacture of linoleum and of insulating material, and for various other purposes; and that in the manufacture of linoleum it needs to undergo much further preparation. The board affirmed the action of the collector in classifying it as a manufacture of cork under paragraph 448, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 193 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677]. The importers contended that it should have been classified as waste under paragraph 463, 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679].
Comstock & Washburn, for importers.
Henry A. Wise, Asst. U. S. Atty.
[MAJORITY — PLATT, District Judge.]
PLATT, District Judge.
The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.