ACKERSON v. UNITED STATES

ACKERSON v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 22, 1909.) No. 5,362. Customs Duties (§ 20*) — Classification—1“ Struct ukal Shapes” — “Fitted foe Use” — Window SavSues. AYliero steel parts have lieen assembled and united into complete window sashes, they have been too far advanced in manufacture to permit rheir inclusión within Tariff Act July 24, 1897, o. 'll, § 1, Schedule 0, par. 123. ;u> Stat. 159 (U. H. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3(530), relating to “structural shapes of iron or steel * * * (hied for rise.” [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Cent. Dig. § 54; Dec. Dig. § 2(5.] On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. The decision below (G. A. 6,810, T. D. -29,276) affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on an importation classified by the collector under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule 0, 30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645 |), as manufactures of metal. The importer’s contention is set forth as follows in his assignments of error: “Said merchandise consisting of steel window easements with the hardware attached, said merchandise should have been separated or segregated, and the steel window casements assessed at five-tenths of .1 cent per pound under paragraph 125 of said act, and the hardware attached assessed under paragraph 193 of said act.” The pertinent portion of said paragraph 125, Schedule C, 30 Stat. 159 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1636), is as follows: ‘■Building forms, togither with all other structural shapes of iron or steel, whether plain or punched, or fitted for use, five-tenths of one cent per pound.” Hiram A. Odell, for importer. Addison S. Pratt, Asst. U. S. Atty. For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — PDATT, District Judge.] PDATT, District Judge. The articles imported were found by the Hoard to be “complete steel window sashes with steel sides, fitted with gun-metal stays and gun-metal handles or hinges, all fastened together.’’ I cannot find from the record that a claim for segregation of the gun-metal attachments was made, and I understand the importer to admit that all that portion of the invoice ought to be classified under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897. I do not consider the question of segregation important, however, because I think the merchandise imported without the attachments has been too far advanced in manufacture to permit its inclusion within the provisions of paragraph 125 of said act. The steel parts out of which the sashes have been manufactured might very well come within the description “shapes of iron or steel, punched and fitted for use”; but after they have been assembled and united into the complete window sashes which we have before us 1 think they should be treated as manufactured. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.'