United States v. Heil Chemical Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | 2,591 (1,799). |
| Citation | 178 F. 537 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEIL CHEMICAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
The opinion of Trieber, District Judge, in the court below reads as follows:
The court declares the law as to the different matters in controversy in this case as follows:
1. Plain goods glass produced by being blown into molds, which the court finds from the evidence are known to the trade as 'molded glassware,' and not as 'blown glassware,' and for that reason is dutiable under paragraph 112 of the act of 1897. Act July 24, 1897, c. 11 Sec. 1, Schedule B, 30 Stat. 158 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 1635). Congress must be supposed to have used the language as understood by manufacturers, dealers, and the trade generally. If there be any doubt on the subject, the rule by which courts will be governed in cases of this nature is that 'the doubt be resolved in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed on the citizen upon vague and doubtful interpretations. ' Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 616, 7 Sup.Ct. 1240, 30 L.Ed. 1012; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 12 Sup.Ct. 55, 35 L.Ed. 821; Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, 190 U.S. 143, 23 Sup.Ct. 702, 47 L.Ed. 984.
2. Glass tubing is blown glass if a finished article, and is dutiable under paragraph 100. Rogers v. United States (C.C.) 115 F. 233; affirmed, 121 F. 546, 57 C.C.A. 608. But if in bulk to be used in the manufacture of finished articles after importation, being when imported incomplete articles of glass suitable only for other manufacture in the finished articles, they are dutiable only under paragraph 112. United States v. Fensterer (C.C.) 84 F. 148; United States v. Durand, 137 F. 382, 69 C.C.A. 566.
3. Are articles of which blown glass is the component material of chief value in connection with other glass, solid or pressed, dutiable under paragraph 100 or 112? Applying the rule laid down in Hartranft v. Wiegmann, supra, it must be held that, in view of the fact that Congress in paragraph 100 did not say that glassware of which blown glass is the component of chief value shall be subject to the duty under that paragraph, it is not dutiable thereunder, but under paragraph 112. Eimer & Amend v. United States (C.C.) 126 F. 439.
4. If plain goods are ground for utility purposes only, and not for ornamentation, they are dutiable under paragraph 112, and not 100. Koscherak v. United States, 98 F. 596, 39 C.C.A. 166; Hempstead v. United States (C.C.) 122 F. 752; United States v. Hesse (C.C.) 141 F. 492; T.D. 26,398. These authorities are conclusive that grinding or etching for utility purposes solely, and not for ornamentation, are dutiable only under paragraph 112. This includes all plain glass, graduated, printed, or etched for utility purposes only.
5. Bottles made of molded or pressed glass with stoppers that have been cut or ground more than is necessary for fitting are dutiable under paragraph 100. Utard v. United States, 128 F. 422, 63 C.C.A. 164; T.D. 25,115.
6. Lampwork-- i.e., wares blown at the lamp-- must be classed as blown glass, and subject to duty under paragraph 100. Congress has made no exception for such ware, and, of course, the courts cannot make them.
As this disposes of all the contested questions of law, the court has no doubt that counsel will be able to prepare a decree in conformity therewith. If they are unable to do so, the court will settle all matters in dispute.
Henry W. Blodgett, U.S. Atty. (Truman P. Young, Asst. ng, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel).
Ferriss, Zumbalen & Ferriss (Joseph H. Zumbalen, of counsel), for appellee.
Before HOOK and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and CARLAND, District Judge.
This was an application under section 15 of the customs administrative act (Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 138 (2 U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933)) for a review of a decision of the Board of General Appraisers sitting at New York classifying for customs duties certain merchandise imported by the chemical company. The Circuit Court reversed the Board of Appraisers in certain particulars and the government took this appeal. The construction and application of paragraphs 100 and 112 of the tariff act (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, Sec. 1, Schedule B, 30 Stat. 157, 158 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1633, 1635)) are involved. They are as follows:
Counsel have substantially agreed upon a brief statement of the questions:
First. Should plain glassware blown in a mold be classified as blown glassware under paragraph 100 of the tariff act, and therefore subject to a duty of 60 per centum ad valorem, or, under paragraph 112, as manufactures of glass not specially provided for, and therefore subject to a duty of but 45 per centum ad valorem. The merchandise in question is blown glassware, but it was blown in a mold. The government contends it is blown glassware, while the company contends it is molded glassware. Besides the context of the act, the parties resorted to testimony as to customary usages of the trade in the description of such goods. The term 'blown glassware' is a common one. The term 'molded,' as applied to glassware, appears in paragraph 99 of the act, but not elsewhere. It there refers to bottles, jars, etc., and the expression is 'plain green or colored, molded or pressed, and flint lime or lead glass bottles, vials, jars,' etc. The Century Dictionary defines pressed glass as 'glass brought to a shape in a mold by a plunger,' and in that sense the terms 'molded' or 'pressed' are synonymous.
The testimony considered by the Circuit Court was not heard orally, but was taken before a referee. The testimony was that of Mr. Heil for the company, and Mr. Lamar and Mr Lysaght for the government. Mr. Heil, the president of the company, testified to a distinction between glassware blown free-handed and that blown in a mold. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial