
    MORIMURA BROS. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    May 18, 1908.)
    No. 4,973.
    Customs Duties (§ 20) — Classification—Bone Swokds — “Swoeds.”
    The provision for “swords” in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule 0, par. 154, 30 Stat. 1G3 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1641), relating to “swords, sword-blades, and side-arms,” does not include so-called “bone swords,” used as curios, ornaments, etc.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 26.*]
    On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    The decision below, which is reported as G. A. 6,612 (T. D. 28,229), affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    Kammerlohr & Duffy (John G. Duffy, of counsel), for importers.
    D. Frank Dloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PLATT, District Judge.

The merchandise in question consists of articles known as “bone swords.” They were assessed for duty by the collector under-the provisions of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11. § 1, Schedule C, par. 154, 30 Stat. 163 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1641), the importers claiming the same properly dutiable, among other provisions, under Schedule N, par. 449, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678),,of said act. Said paragraphs are as follows:

“154. Swords, sword-blades, and side-arms, thirty-five per centum ad valorem.
“449. Manufactures of bone * * * or of which the substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem.”

These articles are curios, and are used as ornaments or for purposes of decoration. The evidence shows they are known as “bone swords” to distinguish them from regular swords. I do not think they are the swords which Congress had in mind when it enacted paragraph 154. They are properly described by paragraph 449.

The decision of the Board of Appraisers is reversed on the authority of Downing v. U. S. (C. C.) 141 Fed. 490.  