Kleeberg v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an appeal by P. Kleeberg from a decision of the board of general appraisers overruling his protest and sustaining the classification of the collector of the merchandise in question, as “silk laces,” under paragraph 301 of the act of 1894. The paragraph above referred to is part of Schedule X — “Silks and Silk Goods” — and, so far as it relates to the present controversy, is as follows: “Laces and articles made wholly or in part of lace * * * composed of silk, or of…
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by P. Kleeberg from a decision of the board of general appraisers overruling his protest and sustaining the classification of the collector of the merchandise in question, as “silk laces,” under paragraph 301 of the act of 1894. The paragraph above referred to is part of Schedule X — “Silks and Silk Goods” — and, so far as it relates to the present controversy, is as follows: “Laces and articles made wholly or in part of lace * * * composed of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, and beaded silk goods, not specially provided for in this act,…
1Opinion of the CourtOoxe, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The testimony taken in lilis court establishes the following facts: The articles in question are made at Nottingham, England, on a lace machine and are woven into a wide web with a draw thread between each piece; when the web is removed from the machine, dressed and dyed, the draw1 thread is pulled out leaving the articles in controversy. They arc used as trimmings, and are known commercially as “insertings'’ or “insertions.” So far there is no dispute. There is a difference of opinion as to whether they are lace or not, but the testimony of those most competent to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- D. S. Hesse & Bro. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1907