2; _Fn1>nm.L REPORTER. `
appraisement of the merchant appraisers thus determined-“shall
be Hnal, and deemed to be the true value, and the duties shall be levied
thereon accordingly? I cannot put any other construction upon this
language than that merchant appraisers are given plenary discretion
to value all the goods in the invoice, and that their valuation is to be
binding, and the guide by which the duties are to be assessed. It
seems to me that when the importer is dissatisfied with the appraisal
put upon the goods by the collector, and calls for merchant apprais—
ers, this tribunal acts, without regard to the entry value, for the pur-
pose of assessing the duties, and that the importer is not bound to
pay duties on any article in the invoice at the entered value where
the appraisers report a less value. ·
In this case, I think the collector erred in assuming that the im-
porter was estopped from going below his own entry value on any
single item of his invoice; but, on the contrary, should have assessed
the duties on the invoice, as a whole, as appraised and valued by the
merchant appraisers, and therefore that the additional 20 per cent.
duty was improperly assessed.
The issue is found for the plaintiff.
I Youne and others v. Smnnruo.
h (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. May 26, 1885.)
Cusroms DUTIES-—SPEC'1‘ACLE Lmwsms or- Bmzn. on Scorcn Panama, wire Rouen
Enems, Durv oN. I
Spectacle lenses manufactured from Brazil or Scotch pebbles, imported with
rough or unfinished edges, and commercially known as " pebbles for spectacles,
rough," are free goods.
At Law.
Percy L. Shuman and Jo. H. Defrees, Jr., for plaintiffs. `
Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.
Bnonemr, J., (orally.) The plaintiffs imported a quantity of spec-
tacle lenses with raw, or unfinished, edges. They were classed "as a
manufacture of glass, or of which glass is the component material of
chief value, not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for, " and
aduty of 45 per cent. ad valorem was assessed against them. Heyl,
pt. 2, p. 7, cl. 143. The plaintiff contended that these goods should
` be admitted under the free-list as "Brazil pebbles for spectacles, and
· pebbles for spectacles r0ugh." Hey], pt. 2, p. 38, cl. 665. The proof
shows that the goods in question are made by sawing the Brazil or
Scotch crystals into slabs or plates, from which they are hnished in
flat, concave, or convex surfaces, for the purpose of being used as
spectacle lenses; but the edges are left unfinished, so that they may
be fitted to the size or shape of the bows or rims in which they are