Chapter XIX: 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,[409] the judge decided against the petitioner,[410] 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 case[411] 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.

PERSIAN PRINCESS AND LADIES IN WAITING

From a Persian illuminated manuscript of the eighteenth century, in
the library of Robert Hoe, Esq.
]

The proper classification of half-pearls has also been a matter of controversy. This question was brought before the Board of General Appraisers in New York on a protest[412] entered in 1897 against the imposition of a duty of 20 per cent. on several lots of so-called half-pearls imported during that year. This duty was imposed under