
    WEIL v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    January 16, 1900.)
    No. 2,706.
    1. Customs Duties — Sufficiency of Protest — Skins.
    Certain long-haired Russian calfskins were classified as dutiable as “hides of cattle,” under paragraph 437, Schedule N, c. 11, § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 192 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1676], when they should have, been classified as free of duty, under paragraph 664 of said act [U. S. Comp. St.. 1901, p. 1688], covering “skins of all kinds, raw.” The importers’ protest against the assessment of the collector did not refer to the proper paragraph (664), but only to paragraphs 561 and 662 of said act [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1683], which relate respectively to “furs, undressed,” and “fur skins.” Held, that this was a sufficient compliance with the requirement in Customs Administrative Act June 10. 1890, c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933], that protests shall set forth “distinctly and specifically” the importer’s objections to the collector’s decision.
    Appeal by the importers, Leopold Weil & Bros., from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers (In re Weil, G. A. 4065), which overruled their protest against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs on certain merchandise imported at the port of New York.
    The merchandise consists of long-haired Russian calfskins, assessed for duty under the provision in paragraph 437, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 192 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1676), for “hides of cattle, raw or uncured.” The importers protested against this assessment, contending that the articles are free of duty under the provisions in paragraphs 561 and 562, Free List, § 2 of said act, 30 Stat. 198 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1683), relating respectively to “furs, undressed,” and “fur skins of all kinds not dressed in any manner and not specially provided for.” The board found on the evidence before it that the skins in question are not “hides,” as classified by the collector, or “furs” or “fur skins,” under said paragraphs 561 and 562, as contended by the importers, but that they are in fact raw skins, which are made free of duty by paragraph 664 of said act, 30 Stat. 201 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1688), relating to “skins of all kinds, raw.” Inasmuch as the importers’ protest did not refer to the proper paragraph in the tariff, it was overruled by the board, on the ground that it did not answer the requirements of section 14, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 137 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933), where it is provided that an importer, in making his protest against the decision of the collector, shall set forth “therein distinctly and specifically * * * the reasons for his objections.”
    See Bayersdorfer v. U. S. (C. C.) 122 Fed. 969; Knowles v. U. S. (C. C.) 122 Fed. 971; U. S. v. Hunter (C. C.) 124 Fed. 1005; U. S. v. Shea, 114 Fed. 38, 51 C. C. A. 664.
    William B. Coughtrypfor importers.
   WHEELER, District Judge.

These Russian calfskins do not appear to be raw hides of cattle, under paragraph 437, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 192 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1676), where they were assessed. If not “furs, undressed,” under paragraph 561, Free List,. § 2, c. 11, 30 Stat. 198 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1683), nor “fur skins,” undressed, under paragraph 562 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1683), they would seem to be either skins or hides not specially provided for in that act, under paragraph 664, Free List, § 2, c. 11, 30 Stat. 201 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1688), and free. The protest, which is questioned, appears to be well enough, according to U. S. v. Salambier, 170 U. S. 621, 18 Sup. Ct. 771, 42 L. Ed. 1167.

Decision reversed.  