113 F. 928 | 2d Cir. | 1902
The relevant paragraph of the tariff act of 1897 reads as follows:
“(315) Plushes, velvets, velveteens, corduroys and all pile fabrics, cut or uncut; any of the foregoing composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, not bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed, nine cents per square yard and twenty-five per centum ad valorem; if bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed, twelve cents per square yard and twenty-five per centum ad valorem: provided, that corduroys composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, weighing seven ounces or over per square yard, shall pay a duty of eighteen cents per square yard and twenty-five per centum ad valorem: provided further, that manufactures or articles in any form, including such as are commonly known as bias dress facings or skirt bindings, made or cut from plushes, velvets, velveteens, corduroys, or other pile fabrics composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, shall be subject to the foregoing rates of duty, and in addition thereto ten per centum ad valorem: provided further, that none of the articles or fabrics provided for in this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than forty-seven and one-half per centum ad valorem.”
The goods weigh over seven ounces per square yard. It is not disputed that they are pile fabrics, and dutiable under the first part of this paragraph, if they are not dutiable under the proviso, as corduroys. They are invoiced as “black cotton velvet cords,” are made of cotton, with a fine rib, and are chiefly used for women’s skirts, sometimes for making women’s jackets, and also for boys’ wearing apparel. They have been imported for the past ten years, and have been sold variously under the names of “velvet cords,” “ribbed velvets,” or “corded velvets.” The board found the evidence conflicting, and held that it would seem to be better capable of being harmonized on the theory that a “velvet cord” is a species of corduroy, and the circuit court concurred with them. We are unable to reach the same conclusion. If the evidence of the retail salesmen be disregarded, — and certainly it is unpersuasive, since their transactions are not with the trade, but
The decision of the circuit court is reversed.