In re Downing

Decision Date02 February 1891
Citation45 F. 412
PartiesIn re DOWNING. In re DEMUTH. In re KAUFMAN. In re ZIMMERN.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Charles Curie, W. Wickham Smith, and Comstock & Brown, for petitioners.

Edward Mitchell, U.S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U.S. Atty for collector.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

In these cases the collector liquidated duty at 100 per cent. ad valorem on certain so-called 'cases' or 'coverings' containing pipes, cigar-holders opera-glasses, and mathematical instruments. The importers protested, claiming that they were the 'usual and necessary coverings' of articles imported and paying duty, and as such were free of duty, or, if not free, that they should pay duty only according to one or the other of some half dozen enumerations in the tariff, which were severally referred to in the protests. The collector's contention was that they were dutiable at 100 per cent. under the proviso of the seventh section of the act of 1883, as being 'designed to evade duties thereon, or designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to the United States. ' The board of appraisers sustained the collector's decision that the articles should pay 100 per cent. The importers brought the cases into this court, and the returns of the board of appraisers have been filed. They certify severally that the facts involved in each case, 'so far as ascertained by the board of general appraisers, are fully stated in an opinion (thereto annexed.) ' Apparently the only fact certified in such opinion is that the coverings were not entered as manufacturers of any kind, but were entered as free. It closes with the statement that 'the protest, so far from being specific, was intended to be vague and indefinite, in order that a lower rate of duty might be assessed under one of the many paragraphs cited, which might be found applicable. * * * For these reasons the protests under consideration are held to be not sufficiently specific within the meaning of the act of June 10, 1890, and are hereby rejected. ' There is no certified statement as to whether the articles are or not 'usual and necessary coverings;' whether or not they were in a form 'designed to evade payment of duties;' whether or not they were designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of goods to United States; ' or whether or not they were manufactures of leather or paper or what not, as claimed in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT