Jaeckel v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
On Application for Review of a- Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. The decision below (G. A. 6,818, T. D. 29,297) affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York, The case depends upon the construction to be given the embroidery proviso in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 339, 30 Stat. 181 (U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
On Application for Review of a- Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. The decision below (G. A. 6,818, T. D. 29,297) affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York, The case depends upon the construction to be given the embroidery proviso in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 339, 30 Stat. 181 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1662), which reads as follows: “Provided, that no wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric, when embroidered by hand or machinery, shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any…
1Opinion of the Court
PLATT, District Judge.
The merchandise at issue is a manufacture of fur, plus a silk-embroidered collar, and is wearing apparel. The silk-embroidered collar is an incidental, although a component, part of the importation; its value being almost infinitesimal by comparison with the rest of the garment. This merchandise can only come within the proviso of. Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 339, 30 Stat. 181 (U. S. Comp; St. 1901, p. 1662), by holding that Congress intended to gather within that proviso all kinds of wearing apparel, without thought as to whether or not it is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carter, Webster & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1906
- Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907