Tax
R. BRAUSS & CO. v. UNITED STATES
120 F. 1017·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1903
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
R. BRAUSS & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 7, 1903.)
No. 3,292.
1• Customs Duties — Split Bamboo.
Split bamboo, cut into lengths of 12 inches, and tied in bundles Intended for use in making brooms, is not taxable under Revenue Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, par. 208 (30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1647]), as manufactures of wood, but is entitled to free entry as “bamboo, rattan, and reed unmanufactured,” under paragraph 700 (30 Stat 202 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1689]).
Howard T. Walden, for appellant.
Charles D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
[MAJORITY — WHEELER, District Judge.]
WHEELER, District Judge.
These are bundles of split bamboo, about 12 inches long, intended for use in making brooms, and have been assessed for duty as “manufactures of wood,” under paragraph 208 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11 (30 Stat. 168 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647]), as against bamboo, in the phrase “bamboo, rattan, reeds unmanufactured,” in paragraph 700 (30 Stat. 202 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1689]), as part of the free list. If “unmanufactured” does not reach back and include bamboo, these bundles are clearly in the free list, for they contain nothing but bamboo. If it does, it is still on the free list, unless they are bundles of manufactured bamboo. Splitting the bamboo and cutting it into lengths do not make it into anything. U. S. v. Dudley, 174 U. S. 670, 19 Sup. Ct. 801, 43 L. Ed. 1129. And putting it up in bundles does not change its character. Frazee v. Moffitt (C. C.) 20 Blatchf. 267, 18 Fed. 584.
Decision reversed.