allowing them to be warehoused, satisfies me that it was the intention of congress to place importers at the interior ports upon the same footing, and give them the same time for the payment of their duties, as is allowed to importers at exterior ports; and that, as to goods which have been transported from an exterior port of first arrival to an interior port of destination, the words" date of original importation," as used in this section, mean the date of the arrival of the goods at the interior port of destination. It therefore seems to me that, inasmuch as the importer in this case offered to pay the duties and charges upon the goods in question within one year from the time the goods arrived at Chicago and were warehoused there, the additional 10 per cent. was improperly and illegally imposed upon them. The issue is found for the plaintiff.
(Ci1'cuit Court, N. D. Illinois.
CUSTOMS DUTms-UNHANUFACTURED TOBACCO.
May 26, 1885.)
Certain tobacco, known to the trade as "scrap tobacco," composerl of fragments or pieces broken or cut off in the manufacture of cigars, he.d to he dutiaMe as unmanufactured tobacco.
At Law. Perr.y L. Shllman and Jo. H. Defrees, Jr., for plaintiff. Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant. BLODGETT, J., (orally.) The plaintiff in this case imported a lot of tobacco and entered it as "unmanufactured or scrap tobacco." It was classed by the appraisers as manufactured tobacco, and assessed at a duty of 40 cents per pound. Heyl, pt. 2, p. 15, c1. 249. The only question in the case is whether this is manufactured or unmanufactured tobacco. The proof in the case shows that it is known to the trade as "scrap tobacco," being composed of fragments or pieces broken or cut off in the manufacture of cigars, and scraps from the tables of the cigar rollers, and that it has yet to undergo some process by which it can be put into form for consumption. The proof in the case shows that it iJ used either as filling for cheap cigars, or worked into some kind of smoking tobacco, or into cigarettes; and therefore it should be treated, for the purposes of duty, as "unmanufactured tobacco." It was contended at the trial that this tobacco came within the provisions of clause 249 as "stemmed tobacco," but I am of opinion that this designation is used to describe leaf tobacco from which the stems had been removed, and not these sweepings of a cigar factory. The issue is therefore found for the plaintiff.
GLANZ V. SPALDING.
(Oil'cuit COU1't, N. D. Illinois. May 26,1885.)
Section 7, act March 3, 1883, as to dutiable value of merchandise, construed.
SAME-SEAL-SKINS, DUTY ON.
Certain skins bought" undressed," or "in salt," brokerage, commissions, and packing charges on, not part of dutiable value.
Percy L. Shuman and Jo. II. Defrees, Jr., for plaintiff. Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant. BLODGETT, J., (orally.) The plaintiff imported four lots of dressed
seal-skins, and the inspector, for the purpose of determining the dutiable value, added brokerage, commissions, fire insurance, cost of dressing, dyeing, and warehousing, which the plaintiff paid under protest, and appealed. There was an adverse decision on the appeal, and this suit was brought in apt time to recover the money thus paid. The proof shows that the skins in this case, as inthe usual course of trade in this class of goods, were bought "undressed," or "in salt," as it is called in London, at auction, and in this case the dyer or dresser of these goods acted as the plaintiff's agent in the purchase, and bid off the goods at the auction. He then dyed and dressed the goods, "machined them," as it is called,.-that is, passed them through a procesR by which the coarse hairs were taken out,-got them insured during the process of dressing and dyeing, and, when finished, packed and shipped them to the plaintiff, so that the cost to the importer of -these goods was made up of the price paid for the green skins at the auction; the auctioneer's commissions, called "lot money;" the cost of dressing, dyeing, machining, fire insurance during the process of dressing, and the interest on the money advanced by the agent and his commissions, and the cost of packing. Sections and 2908 authorized brokerage, commissions, cost of transportation from the place of purchase to the port of shipment, cost of packing, etc., to be added to the cost of the goods at the place where purchased, to make up the dutiable cost; but the act of March 3, 1883, repealed this section. The claim made to recover back the fire insurance item was abandoned on the trial, and the only question, therefore, in this case is as to the items of brokerage, commissions, and packing. I find that the brokerage, commissions, and packing were improperlyadded to the cost of the goods, since the repeal of sections 2907 and 2908, and the plaintiff should, therefore, have a finding in his favor for the amount of these items.