## Facts

- Olivotti & Co. imported a carved marble baptismal font and two carved marble seats.
- The articles were made by a sculptor and included ornamental carved features (e.g., leaf carvings).
- Under the Tariff Act of 1913, “manufactures of marble” were subject to a 45% ad valorem duty, while “works of art,” including sculpture, were subject to a 15% ad valorem duty.
- Customs classified the items as “manufactures of marble” and assessed the 45% duty.
- The importer protested, contending the items were “sculpture” and therefore “works of art” at 15%.
- The Board of General Appraisers agreed with the importer and reclassified the goods as sculptures.
- The United States appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a marble baptismal font and marble seats with carved ornamental features qualify as “sculpture” and thus “works of art” under the Tariff Act of 1913.
2. Whether utilitarian marble furnishings, even when artistically carved, are properly classified as “manufactures of marble” subject to the higher duty.
3. Whether “sculpture” for tariff purposes requires representational imitation of natural objects rather than decorative carving on functional articles.

## Decision

- The Court of Customs Appeals reversed the Board of General Appraisers.
- The court held the baptismal font and seats were not “sculptures” within the tariff meaning of “works of art.”
- The goods were properly classified as “manufactures of marble” and dutiable at 45% ad valorem.

## Legal Principles

- For tariff classification, “sculpture” as a “work of art” is construed narrowly to distinguish fine art from decorated commercial or utilitarian manufactures.
- A carved marble article does not qualify as “sculpture” merely because a sculptor executed the carving or because it contains ornamental relief.
- Articles whose primary character is functional (e.g., furnishings or fixtures) are classified as manufactures when the artistic features are incidental to utility.
- “Sculpture” for tariff purposes was treated as requiring representational imitation of natural objects, not merely decorative or architectural ornamentation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a carved marble baptismal font and carved marble seats, though ornamented and made by a sculptor, were primarily utilitarian furnishings and did not meet the tariff meaning of “sculpture” as a “work of art”; they were therefore dutiable as manufactures of marble at the higher rate.


United States v. Olivotti & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. App. 46 (Ct. Cust. App. 1916)