## Facts

- The Tariff Act of 1922 imposed a 20% ad valorem duty on “cut diamonds … suitable for use in jewelry.”
- The Act also allowed duty-free entry for “artistic antiquities,” meaning works of art created more than 100 years before importation.
- Mayers, Osterwald & Muhlfeld, Inc. imported the “Nassak diamond,” a large, highly valuable diamond with a long history connected to a temple in India.
- The diamond had been in an Indian temple for an unknown period before it was brought to London in 1818.
- In London, the diamond was recut according to standard cutting practices.
- When the diamond was imported into the United States, customs authorities permitted it to enter duty-free under the “artistic antiquities” provision.
- E. F. Bendler, described as a rival diamond dealer, sued in the United States Customs Court, arguing the Nassak diamond was not an artistic antiquity but instead a cut diamond suitable for use in jewelry and therefore subject to the 20% duty.
- The Customs Court ruled for the importer, treating the diamond as an artistic antiquity.
- Bendler appealed to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Nassak diamond, as imported, was properly classifiable as a duty-free “artistic antiquity” or as a dutiable “cut diamond … suitable for use in jewelry” under the Tariff Act of 1922.
2. Whether the diamond’s age, provenance, and historical associations were sufficient to place it within the “artistic antiquities” category despite its character as a cut gemstone.

## Decision

- The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the Customs Court.
- The court held the Nassak diamond did not qualify for duty-free entry as an “artistic antiquity.”
- The court classified the import as a cut diamond suitable for use in jewelry and therefore subject to the 20% ad valorem duty.

## Legal Principles

- For tariff classification, an article is classified by its condition and character as imported, not solely by the notoriety of its past ownership or historical associations.
- The “artistic antiquities” provision is limited to “works of art” meeting the statute’s age requirement; age and fame alone do not transform a commercial article into an antiquity for tariff purposes.
- When a tariff schedule specifically provides a duty for cut diamonds suitable for jewelry, that specific provision controls classification for an article that fits it, even if the stone is old or uniquely famous.
- Prior recutting consistent with ordinary diamond cutting practice supports treating the article as a cut gemstone for commercial use rather than as an “artistic antiquity.”

## Conclusion

The C.C.P.A. held that the Nassak diamond’s historical background did not control tariff treatment and that, because it entered the United States as a cut diamond suitable for use in jewelry, it was dutiable at 20% under the Tariff Act of 1922 rather than entitled to duty-free entry as an artistic antiquity.


Mayers, Osterwalk & Muhlfeld, Inc. v. Bendler, 18 C.C.P.A. 117 (1930)