United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

The appellant in this case petitions for a rehearing on the ground, first, that the rugs are Axminster rugs, and second, that the decision of this court rendered herein is a reversal of its decision in Beuttell *386v. United States (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 419) and United States v. Gertzen (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 428).

In tlie present case we held that paragraph 300 of the tariff act of 1913 covered both hand-made and machine-made rugs woven whole for rooms as complete single entities, but that it did not include rugs which were portions of carpeting or which were made from carpets or carpeting. We find…