Heinze v. Arthur's Executors

Citations

• 144 U.S. 28
• 12 S. Ct. 604
• 36 L. Ed. 333
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2051

Syllabus

<p>Gloves made of cotton and silk, in which cotton was the material of chief value were imported in January,' 1874, and charged by the collector with a duty of 60 per cent ad valorem, that rate of duty being chargeable only on “ silk gloves,” under the act of June 30, 1864, c. 171, 13 Stat. 210, and on “ ready made clothing of silk, or of which silk shall be a component material of chief value,” under § 3 of the act of March 3, 1865, c. 80, 13 Stat. 493. The importer protested and appealed and brought suit. His protest stated that the goods were only liable to a duty of 35 per cent less 10 per cent “ being composed of cotton and silk, cotton chief part, the duty of 60 per cent being only legal where silk is the chief part.” The goods were made on frames; Held,</p> <p>(1) Under § 14 of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 171,13 Stat. 214, 215, the protest set forth distinctly and specifically the grounds of the objection of- the importer to the decision of the collector, and was sufficient;</p> <p>(2) It was immaterial that the protest did not • specify that the gloves were made on frames;</p> <p>(3) The goods were dutiable only at 33 per cent less 10 per cent under § 22 of the act of March 2, 1861, 12 Stat. 191, and § 13 of the act of July 14, 1862, 12 Stat. 555, 556,559, and under § 2 of the act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 231.</p>