General
ROBBINS v. UNITED STATES
90 F. 805·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1898
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
ROBBINS v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 16, 1898.)
No. 2,365
Customs Duties — Classification—Initialed Handkerchiefs.
Handkerchiefs on which an initial is embroidered are dutiable, under paragraph 258 of the tariff law of 1891, as “handkerchiefs,” and not under paragraph 276, as “embroidered handkerchiefs.”
This is an appeal by B. 0. Robbins from a decision of the board of general appraisers affirming the classification for duty of certain imported merchandise.
W. Wickham Smith, for importer.
J. T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.
[MAJORITY — TOWNSKÍST), District Judge]
TOWNSKÍST), District Judge
(orally). The merchandise herein comprises handkerchiefs on which were embroidered an initial. They were assessed at 50 per cent, ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 270 of the act of 1894, as “embroidered handkerchiefs.” The importers protested, claiming that they were dutiable at 40 per cent, ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 255 of said act, as “handkerchiefs.” This question has already been before the courts under the provisions of the tariff act of 1890 (paragraph 373), which provided, for a duty on embroidered and hemstitched handkerchiefs. In view of the decisions in U. S. v. Harden, 35 U. S. App. 340, 15 C. C. A. 358, and 68 Fed. 182, and U. S. v. Jonas, 55 U. S. App. 64, 27 C. C. A. 500, and 83 Fed. 167, I find that the articles in question are not embroidered, and the decision of the board of appraisers is therefore reversed.