SUN KWONG ON V. UNITED STATES. 115 .
dispute was the amount of taxes, $1,018, and the Circuit Court could
not take jurisdiction by removal.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, with costs against
the defendant in error and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court
with instructions to proceed according to law and in conformity to the
opinion of this court in this case and in the case of Knight etal. v.
Lutcher & Moore Lumber Company et al., supra.
SUN KWONG ON v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals. Second Circuit. March 6, 1906.)
N0. 148.
Cusroms DUTIES—CLASSIFICATION—DUCKS’ Ecos—E¤os or Bums.
Paragraph 549, Free List, § 2, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 197
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1683], relating to "eggs of birds," does not in-
clude eggs of the domesticated duck, which are dutiable under paragraph
244, Schedule G, §1, 30 Stat. 170 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649], as
"eggs, not specially provided for."
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New York. .
The decision below, G. A. 5,966 (T. D. 26,151), affirmed the
assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New
York.
The opinion of the board reads as follows:
WAITE, General Appraiser. The goods in this importation are described
in the invoice as "salt eggs," and consist of ducks’ eggs in the shell, packed
in salt and mud. They were assessed for duty at 5 cents per dozen under para-
graph 244, Schedule G, §1, c. 11, Tafiff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 170 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649], which reads as follows: "244. Eggs, not specially
provided for in this act, five cents per dozen." It is contended on behalf
of the importer that the articles are properly exempt from duty under the
provisions of paragraph 549, Free List, § 2, 30 Stat. 197 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 1683], which reads as follows: "549. Eggs of birds, fish, and insects:
Provided, however, that this shall not be held to include the eggs of game
birds or eggs of birds not used for food, the importation of which is pro-
, hlbited, except specimens for scientific collections, nor fish roe preserved for
food purposes/’
The testimony shows that the goods are the eggs of domesticated ducks,
and were imported from China. The only witness produced at the hearing
testified that the ducks were kept about the house and were tame, and that
the eggs are imported for food. It seems clear that the domesticated duck
would itself be classlhed as “poultry." It has frequently been held by this
board that ordinary barnyard fowl, such as domestic chickens and geese,
were not within the exemption of "birds and land and water fowls" in para-
graph 494, Free List. § 2, of the act (30 Stat. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1681),
being more specifically provided for as "poultry" under paragraph 278, Sched-
ule G, § 1, 26 Stat. 172 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1652]. In re Moreau, G. A.
166 (T. D. 10,516); In re Croley, G. A. 3,305 (T. D. 16,660; In re Jones, G.
A. 5,103 (T. D. 23,616). It would seem to follow that the eggs of the domestic
duck are not eggs of "birds," within the meaning of paragraph 549. That
Congress intended paragraph 244 to cover eggs of poultry is confirmed by its
position in the act. It is found in Schedule G, 26 Stat. 170 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 1649], covering "agrlcultural products and provisions." and falls
under the subdivision “farm and field products." It is obvious that, if para-