General
UNITED STATES v. PILDITCH
99 F. 938·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1900
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. PILDITCH.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 22, 1900.)
No. 2,461.
Customs Duties — Review of Appraisal-^-Sufficiercy of Protest.
The fact that the protest of an importer against an assessment for duty fails to state under what provision or what law it is claimed the merchandise should he assessed does not render it insufficient, where, on appeal; the right paragraph is found and the correct duty imposed.
This is an application by the collector of custom at Yew York for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers.
The duty was assessed at 30 per cent, ad valorem, as within the specific enumeration of boiler or other plate iron or steel valued above 1% cents, and not over 4 cents, per pound, in paragraph 114 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894. The importer protested that the duty should be assessed at 1 Vio cents per pound, but without stating under what section of the act (or any act) this was provided for. The board of general appraisers decided that the merchandise was sheet steel in strips, and nearly all was valued at above 4 cents per pound, and was similar to the steel in U. S. y. Wetherell, 13 O. C. A. 264, 65-Fed. 987. The protests were therefore overruled, and the appraisal of the collector of customs affirmed.
Curie & Smith, for importer.
Chas. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Aliy.
[MAJORITY — WHEELED, District Judge.]
WHEELED, District Judge.
The protest does not point out the paragraph claimed under, in the act of 1894, imported under, nor that law, nor any law, as the foundation of the protest. Otherwise, it is like that in U. S. v. Salambier, 170 U. S. 621, 18 Sup. Ct. 771, 42 L. Ed. 1167, which pointed out the claim as "under existing laws.” Such claims are, of course, under law and existing laws, and this distinction seems to he without adequate foundation. Under the protest the right paragraph was found, and the correct duty has been exacted. This would seem to be enough, there being no one wronged complaining or to complain. Decision affirmed.