Court of Appeals.1
This decision was to the effect that pearls in any form not especially
covered by paragraphs 434 or 436 of the Tariff Act should be referred
to one or the other of those paragraphs, by similitude, according to
the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
The
testimony taken before the Board of Appraisers revealed the fact that
each of the collections of pearls had been inclosed in a handsome
silk-lined morocco case, with a groove running through the center ; in
this groove the pearls were laid, the largest one in the middle and the
others disposed on either side, graduated according to their size; the
row or series having the effect of a necklace, although the pearls were
unstrung. The importer testified that this arrangement was only made in
order to enable him to judge of the size and quality of the pearls, and
evidence was given showing that it was necessary to rebore some of them
and to ream out the holes before any use could be made of the pearls in
jewelry. Nevertheless, the appraisers adhered to their opinion that
these gems had been selected especially to form a necklace, and that
the time and labor requisite for the assembling of a carefully matched
and graduated series of pearls suitable for a necklace constituted the
main factor in its production, since the cost of stringing it was
trifling ; they, therefore, considered that such a series of pearls was
dutiable, by similitude, under paragraph 434 of the Tariff Act as
jewelry. An application was made to the Circuit Court of the Southern
District of New York for a review of the appraisers' ruling,2 the judge decided against the petitioner,3
and an appeal was then taken from his decision. On December 12, 1904,
the Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the pearls were dutiable, by
similitude, at 10 per cent, ad valorem, under Section 7, paragraph 436,
and the excess of duty collected was refunded.
Another
case has to do with a collection of 37 pearls, entered at $220,000,
brought to New York in January, 1906. Duty to the amount of $22,000 (10
per cent, ad valorem) was paid by the importer, but the entry was
liquidated at 60 per cent, and $110,000 additional duty demanded. This
was paid and a protest was made to the Board of General Appraisers, who
decided in favor of the petitioner. The Government appealed and the case4
was tried in the United States Circuit Court on February 24 of this
year (1908). It was shown that the pearls had been worn several times
in Paris as a necklace, but the defense held that, as they were loose
when imported and were not worth more collectively than separately,
this was not material. The judge decided for the Government and an
appeal has been taken in June, 1908.
1 December 6, 1901 ; 112 Fed. Rep. 672. 3 Dec. 29, 1903.
2 Suit No. 3328.
* Suit No. 4974·
