
    GERMANIA IMPORTING CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 13, 1905.)
    No. 4,044.
    1. Customs Duties — Classification—Grease-Peoof Paper — Printing Paper.
    
      Held that an imitation parchment paper, known as grease-proof paper, which, though it can be printed on, is not suitable for printing purposes, but is used almost altogether as wrapping paper, is not dutiable as printing paper, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 396, 30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1071], but as paper not specially provided for, under paragraph 402 (30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672]).
    On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    For decision below, see G. A. 6,060, T. D. 26,442, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    The questions involved are stated in the following extracts from the opinion of the Board of General Appraisers:
    “FISCHER, General Appraiser. The merchandise is paper upon which duty was assessed at the rate of 25 per cent, under the provisions of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 402, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1672], as paper not specially provided for, and which is claimed to be dutiable property under the provisions of paragraph 396 of said act (30 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1671]), as printing paper. The samples admitted in evidence and the testimony taken in these and other cases, which, on motion, are made part of the record in the present case, show that the article is the imitation parchment, grease-proof paper often passed on by the courts and the board, and held to be dutiable as herein assessed. Note G. A. 4,701, T. D. 22,163, and the authorities cited. * * * In the cases now under consideration the importer has attempted to show that the paper is ‘printing paper suitable for books and newspapers,’ but the evidence they adduced at the hearings tends rather to establish a contrary conclusion. The paper is invoiced sometimes as ‘wrapping paper’ and sometimes as ‘pergament ersatz’ (imitation parchment) ; and its chief and practically its only use is, as shown by the testimony of the importer himself, to be for wrapping meat, butter, lard, and other oleaginous substances. On motion of the attorney for the importer, the record in protest 123,888 was made part of the record in this case. * * * It seems evident from this testimony that the claim that this paper is dutiable as printing paper has no other basis than that it can be printed on; but that is not sufficient to warrant its classification as such, notwithstanding the somewhat liberal meaning that term possesses under recent judicial decisions. We hold that-the paper is not printing paper suitable for books and newspapers, but that it is dutiable as assessed.
    “The protests are overruled and the decision of tue collector affirmed in each case.”
    Hatch, Keener & Clute (J. Stuart Tompkins, of counsel), for importers.
    Henry A. Wise, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.  