
    MORIMURA BROS v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    February 15, 1909.)
    No. 5,126.
    Customs Duties (§ 37) — Okassiftoation Hinoki Baskets — “Mantjfactubes of Chip.”
    Baskets made of twisted hinoki wood shavings held dutiable as “manufactures of chip,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 449, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678).
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 37.*]
    On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    The case relates to so-called hinoki baskets, stated in the opinion below to have been “made of twisted hinoki wood shavings.” These articles were classified by the collector of customs at the port of New York as manufactures of “wood,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule D, par. 208, 30 Stat. 168 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1647). The importers contended for classification as manufactures in chief value of “chip,” under Schedule N, par. 449, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678). The board overruled this contention because the evidence was not satisfactory. Further evidence was taken in the circuit court.
    Kammerlohr & Duffy (Joseph G. Kammerlohr of counsel), for importers.
    J. Osgood Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic & § numbee in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HOLT, District Judge.

I think that the baskets in controversy were manufactures of which chip was the component material of chief value, and as such dutiable at 30 per cent, under Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 449, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678). The previous decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, which were relied on, seem of little weight. One was rendered by default, and the evidence in the other shows that the government appraiser acceded to the importers’ claim that the article in question was dutiable as chip, and the subsequent appraisal of it as a manufacture of wood was apparently a blunder. The difficulty of reliquidating, referred to in the appraisers’ decision, from the indefiniteness of the testimony then before them, has been in my opinion removed by the evidence since taken in this court.

The decision of the appraisers is reversed, and the baskets in ques» tion held to be dutiable at 30 per cent, under section 449.  