MALDONADO & CO. v. UNITED STATES; HENSEL, BRUCKMANN & LORBACHER v. SAME

MALDONADO & CO. v. UNITED STATES. HENSEL, BRUCKMANN & LORBACHER v. SAME. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 8, 1910.) Nos. 121, 125 (4,448, 4,679). Customs Duties (S 26) — Classification—Steel Foilus and Shapes — Horseshoe Calks— Ball Bicariños. The provision for “steel in all forms and simpes,” in Tariff Act .Tuly 24, 1897, o. 11, § 1, Schedule C, par. 185, 80 Stat. 161 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1688), does not include completed articles, such as horseshoe calks and ball bearings, to which nothing needs to he done to fit them for immediate use. [Eel. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 26. For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6656.] Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. For decision below, see 172 Fed. 170, in which the Circuit Court affirmed decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importations in dispute had been classified as manufactures of metal under Tariff Act July 24, 3897, c. 11, § 1, par. 198, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645), against the importers’ contention for classification under the provision in paragraph 135, 30 Stat. 361 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1638), for steel in all forms and shapes. Brooks & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks, of counsel), for importers. D. Frank Uoyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. (William K. Payne, Asst. Atty., of counsel), for the United States. Before EACOM.BE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges (Maldonado Case), and EACOMBE and WARD, Circuit Judges, and HAND, District Judge (Heusel Case). For other oases see same topic & § NUmbdr m Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Itep'r Indexes [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. In these two case's, arising under the tariff act of 1897, the articles imported are, respectively, steel calks, for insertion in horseshoes, and ball bearings, consisting of raceways and balls, for use in automobiles. Nothing needs to be done to either to fit it for immediate use. The calk is merely screwed into the threaded hole provided in the shoe; the ball bearing is merely assembled with the other parts to make up an automobile. We are satisfied that both are covered by our recent decision in Morris & Co. v. U. S., 174 Fed. 656 (Dec. 7, 1909), and not to be included within the provisions of paragraph 135. The decisions in both cases are affirmed.