Tiffany v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | 37. |
| Citation | 71 F. 691 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | TIFFANY v. UNITED STATES. |
Wm. B Coughty, for appellant.
Henry C. Platt, for appellee.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
There is no dispute that these articles were properly classified for duty, unless they are covered by the provisions of paragraph 465 in the same act, which imposes a duty of 15 per cent. on statuary therein described. There is no contention that they are within the provisions of the free list (paragraph 677), which cover only statuary imported for the encouragement of the fine arts, and not intended for sale.
In the tariff act of 1883 statuary was provided for in paragraph 470, as follows:
'470. Paintings in oil or water colours, and statuary not otherwise provided for, thirty per centum ad valorem. But the term 'statuary,' as used in the laws now in force imposing duties on foreign importations, shall be understood to include professional productions of a statuary or of a sculptor only:'
In the tariff act of 1890, under which the goods in suit were imported, this provision (numbered paragraph 465) is altered so as to read as follows:
Bronze statues, such as were imported in this case, are made as follows: The artist, with palette and stick, makes a complete model in clay of his conception. This is put in the hands of a professional molder in plaster, who makes a plaster cast from it. This plaster cast is then put in the hands of a bronze founder, who prepares a sand mold, into which bronze is cast, the result being the statue complete, except for smoothing, chasing, and touching up. The artist's handwork in preparing the clay model is in no sense the work which transforms the metal itself into the statue, and the fact that some 'touching up' or smoothing or chasing is put upon the casting after it comes from the mold is not sufficient to entitle it to classification as statuary wrought by hand from metal, especially in view of the testimony of app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Tiffany & Co.
...the metal chiefly used in the art, be not included it is difficult to understand to what the language applies. The case of Tiffany v. U.S., 71 F. 691, 18 C.C.A. 297, is principally relied on by the appellant. But it appeared that case that the government's contention was that the importatio......
-
Altman & Co. v. United States
... ... [172 F. 163] ... plastic material under the hand of the artist. This kind of ... statuary has been the subject of decisions both by the Board ... and the courts in various cases. The importers in their ... contention rely on the case of United States v ... Tiffany, 160 F. 408, 87 C.C.A. 360, T.D. 28,717, as ... modifying all previous decisions on this subject. Paragraph ... 454 of the act of 1897 is the same as paragraph 465 of the ... act of 1890 (Act Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, Sec. 1, Schedule N, ... 26 Stat. 602), under which last-named act the Circuit ... ...
-
C.B. Richard & Co. v. United States
... ... D ... Frank Lloyd, Asst. U.S. Atty ... HOUGH, ... District Judge (after stating the facts) ... The ... subject of this protest is an art object brought from Italy ... and belonging to the ... [151 F. 955.] ... class of metal statuary ruled upon in Tiffany v. United ... States, 71 F. 691, 18 C.C.A. 297. In the ordinary ... acceptation of the word it is 'statuary,' but that ... word is given by paragraph 454 of the tariff act of 1897 (Act ... July 24, 1897, c. 11, Sec. 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 194 (U.S ... Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678)) a specific and ... ...
- Tiffany & Co. v. United States