United States v. Olivotti
7 Ct. Cust. 46, 1916 CCPA LEXIS 35 (1916)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an object to be classified as a 'work of art' or 'sculpture' under tariff law, its primary purpose must be aesthetic rather than utilitarian. If an object's main purpose is functional, any artistic or sculptural elements are considered merely decorative and do not elevate the entire object to the status of fine art.
Facts:
- An importer brought several marble items into the United States through the port of New York.
- Among the items were a marble font and two marble seats, both made by a sculptor named Molonari.
- The marble font was a basin on a column, copied from an original in an Italian church, and its column was ornamented with carvings of leaves.
- The marble seats were copies of a Grecian original from the Vatican museum.
- The arm rests of the seats were carved into the form of lions’ heads, and the supports terminated in carved lions’ paws.
- The font was designed to hold water and the seats were designed for sitting, serving primarily utilitarian purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- The collector of customs at the port of New York classified the imported marble items as 'manufactures of marble' under paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1913, assessing a 45% duty.
- The importers protested the classification to the Board of General Appraisers, a lower tribunal, arguing the items should be classified as 'works of art' under paragraph 376 with a 15% duty.
- The Board of General Appraisers held that the marble font and marble seats were 'works of art' dutiable under paragraph 376.
- The United States Government, as the appellant, appealed the Board's decision regarding the font and seats to the Court of Customs Appeals, with the importers as the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do artistically embellished, utilitarian objects like a marble font and marble seats qualify as 'works of art' or 'sculptures' under paragraph 376 of the tariff act of 1913, which provides a lower duty rate for such items?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Judge
No. Artistically embellished, utilitarian objects do not qualify as 'works of art' or 'sculptures' under the tariff act because their primary purpose is functional, not aesthetic. The court reasoned that the term 'sculpture' is limited to imitations of natural objects, and the term 'works of art' in the statute refers to the 'free fine arts,' like painting and sculpture, which appeal to the emotions and are not created primarily for utility. In the case of the font, its beauty derived from its lines and proportions, with the leaf carvings being merely incidental decoration, not true sculpture. Similarly, the seats, despite their artistic carvings, remain fundamentally chairs designed for a useful purpose. The court concluded that unless the artistic quality is so compelling that 'the utilitarian achievement of the artisan is lost in the realized sentiment of the artist,' the object remains a product of industrial art, not fine art.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal distinction between 'fine art' and 'industrial' or 'decorative art' for customs classification. It establishes a 'primary purpose' test, where an object's functionality generally prevents it from being classified as a 'work of art,' even if it possesses significant artistic qualities. This precedent narrows the definition of 'works of art' under the tariff act, making it more difficult for importers to claim lower duty rates for high-quality, artistic, but ultimately utilitarian goods. The ruling reinforces the principle that, for legal and tax purposes, true 'fine art' is generally considered non-functional and created for aesthetic appreciation alone.
