## Facts

- The Tariff Act of 1909 imposed a 50% ad valorem duty on “marble creations” (manufactures of marble) and a 15% ad valorem duty on “sculptures,” including marble sculptures.
- The Act limited the “sculptures” category to “original works of art” produced by “professional sculptors.”
- Consmiller imported carved marble mantels into the United States.
- The collector of customs classified the imported mantels as “marble creations,” assessing the 50% ad valorem duty.
- The importer protested, claiming the mantels were “sculptures” within the Act and therefore subject to the 15% ad valorem duty.
- Before the Board of General Appraisers, the importer relied primarily on testimony from Ernest Plancon, the foreman who oversaw the workshop where the mantels were made.
- Plancon testified that he was a marble mason and sculptor; he had apprenticed under sculptors and taken classes at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, but he did not graduate.
- None of Plancon’s sculptural work had been exhibited in a gallery or museum.
- The Board determined Plancon was an artisan rather than a “professional sculptor” as that term was used in the statute, and it upheld the collector’s classification.
- The importer appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the imported marble mantels qualified as “sculptures” (original works of art by professional sculptors) under the Tariff Act of 1909, rather than as “marble creations” (manufactures of marble).
2. Whether the evidence about the workshop foreman, Ernest Plancon, established that the mantels were produced by a “professional sculptor” within the statutory meaning.
3. Whether the Board of General Appraisers’ determination that Plancon was an artisan—and the resulting classification—should be disturbed on appeal.

## Decision

- The Court of Customs Appeals affirmed the Board of General Appraisers.
- The court held that the mantels were not shown to be “sculptures” within the Tariff Act of 1909’s definition requiring original art by a professional sculptor.
- The court left in place the 50% ad valorem duty applicable to “marble creations.”

## Legal Principles

- A tariff provision granting a lower rate for “sculptures” applies only when the importer proves the goods meet the statutory definition (original works of art made by professional sculptors).
- Decorative carving on a commercial marble article does not, by itself, establish that the article is a “sculpture” under the Act.
- The status of the maker as a “professional sculptor,” and whether the work is within the statutory art category, are fact-driven determinations evaluated on the record made before the Board.
- Appellate review gives weight to the Board of General Appraisers’ findings where supported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the importer did not establish that the marble mantels were original works of art created by a professional sculptor as required by the Tariff Act of 1909, the Court of Customs Appeals affirmed the Board’s ruling that the mantels were dutiable as manufactures of marble at 50% ad valorem rather than as tariff-favored sculptures at 15%.


Consmiller v. United States, 3 Ct. Cust. App. 298 (1912)