(15557.) Denying Substitution of Invoice for One by which Entry was made. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1895. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 9th instant, containing application for permission to substitute the invoice submitted for the one on which entry of certain sugars, imported by you per steamship Athos, September 17, 1894, was made, I have to state that said application is denied, as it appears First. That the alleged error in the invoice was not brought to the attention of the collector of customs before such invoice had come under the observation of the appraiser, as contemplated under article 920 of the Regulations of 1892; Second. Because the appraising officer reports that the invoice and entered value, viz, £10 per ton, represents "cost of the sugar packed ready for shipment;" and Third. Because under the law "duty can not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value." Respectfully, yours, Messrs. GILLESPIE BROS. & Co., 4 Stone Street, New York. (15558.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. Duty on Astrakhan Trimmings under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1895. SIR: I have to inform you that the Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 4th instant, in which he reports the trial, on December 14 last, in the United States circuit court for that district, of the so-called appraisers' case, J. Lowenthal & Co. v. The United States (A. 1688), which case was decided in favor of the Government. This appeal of the importers covered certain "astrakhan trimmings," entered at the port of New York, and classified for duty by the collector as "manufactures, goat's hair and cotton, goat hair chief value, as trimmings, 60 cents per pound, and 60 per cent ad valorem," under paragraph 398 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested upon several grounds, but chiefly that the goods were manufactures of wool, worsted or mohair chief value, and dutiable according to value in paragraph 392 of the said act. This protest was the subject of the decision of your Board (G. A. 2357), wherein, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Robertson v. Solomon (144 U. S., 603), it was held that these dress trimmings were dutiable under paragraph 398, as assessed by the collector. An appeal having been taken by the importers under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1890, it was contended by the United States attorney, upon argument of the case in the United States circuit court, that the expression in paragraph 398, "wrought by hand or braided by machinery," did not refer to any of the articles in the paragraph, except buttons," or "barrel buttons," immediately preceding that provision, and that consequently, if these articles were in reality or commercially dress trimmings composed of wool, worsted, or goat's hair, it was not necessary that they should be entirely "wrought by hand or braided by machinery." The court took this view of the case, and affirmed the decision of your Board in the following terms: Paragraph 398 of the tariff act of 1890 provided for a duty "on webbing, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, laces and embroideries, head nets, buttons, or barrel buttons, or buttons of other forms, for tassels or ornaments, wrought by hand or braided by machinery, any of the foregoing which are elastic or nonelastic, made of wool, worsted, the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or other animals." These articles are dress trimmings of mohair woven in the piece and cut apart and hemmed by hand. They were assessed as dress trimmings under this paragraph instead of as manufactures of wool and of hair of animals not specially provided for under paragraph 392. They are included in 398 unless the words "wrought by hand or braided by machinery" apply to dress trimmings. These words are, however, directly connected with "buttons of other forms for tassels or ornaments" and separated by "or" from the articles preceding these buttons. Therefore, most naturally and grammatically, these words do not apply to articles before this "or." The following words of description are carried back to all the articles by the broad words "any of the foregoing," and these specific words, "embroidered by hand or braided by machinery," would also, if intended to apply back to all the articles, have been placed after and brought under the meaning of these general words. These articles seem to be dress trimmings specifically described in 398 and to have been properly assessed as such. The issue in this case appears to be identical with that covered by the case In re R. F. Downing & Co. (heretofore decided by that court adversely to the Government, and reported in 56 Fed. Rep., 815), which decision was acquiesced in by this Department in so far as it related to that single case. Upon the advice of the Attorney-General the trial of another case was directed, which has resulted in a decision in favor of the Government. Respectfully, yours, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS, (15559.) 123 Bleecker street, New York. Drawback—Intent of the Second Proviso to Section 22 of Act of 1894. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 22, 1895. SIR: In reply to your letter of the 20th ultimo, relative to the pro visions of section 22 of the act of August 28, 1894, the Department has to inform you that the proviso referred to by you which reads, "That the drawback on any article allowed under existing law shall be continued at the rate herein provided," refers to the rate of drawback provided in said section, and not to the rates of duty imposed by the said act, and consequently that the drawback on articles manufactured from materials imported under the previous tariff must be equal to the duty actually paid on the materials used in the manufacture less 1 per cent. thereof, whether the exportation of the articles takes place before or after the new rates of duty became operative. The proviso cited by you is the same as is found in section 25 of the act of October 1, 1890, and merely extends the deduction of 1 per cent to drawbacks payable under such other existing laws as required a deduction of 10 per cent. Respectfully, yours, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Chicago, Ill. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15560.) Marine Glue as Material for Construction of Vessels Built in the United States, or as "Supplies." TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 22, 1895. GENTLEMEN: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, in which you state that you have furnished a large quantity of marine glue, an article used for calking the decks of vessels, to Messrs. Wm. Cramp & Son, to be used on two new American liners, and you inquire whether such article is covered by the term "supplies," found in section 16, act of June 26, 1884, and Department's circular of the 27th ultimo. In reply, I would state that, if the glue in question was withdrawn from bond for use in the construction of said vessels, it would appear to be covered by the provisions of section 7 of the act of August 28, 1894, which provides for the withdrawal, free of duty, of all materials of foreign production which may be necessary for the construction of vessels built in the United States for foreign account and ownership, or for the purpose of being employed in the foreign trade, etc., and would not be regarded as supplies. If, however, the articles were taken on board a vessel for use in repairs on her voyage, the question whether it should be regarded as "supplies," under the act of June 26, 1884, would be determined by the collector of customs at the port of withdrawal, subject, in the event that duty was assessed, to protest and appeal, as provided in the Department's circular of December 27 last. Respectfully, yours, CHARLES. S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. Messrs. L. W. FERDINAND & Co., Boston, Mass. (15561.) Suspending Requirement of Samples of Wool and other Free Goods to be Deposited with Consular Officers Certifying Invoices of such Goods. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 23, 1895. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from the United States consul at Bradford, England, in regard to the requirement of samples of wool shipped to the United States under paragraphs 649 and 650, Consular Regulations of 1888. In regard thereto you are informed that as all wool of the sheep, hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, and other like animals, and all wool and hair on the skin, noils, yarn waste, card waste, bur waste, slubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, and all waste or rags, composed wholly or in part of wool, are exempt from duty under paragraph 685 of the act of August 28, 1894, the Department is of opinion that the requirement of samples of wool or any other free goods may be suspended, as it would subject shippers to unnecessary trouble and expense. Respectfully, yours, The Hon. SECRETARY OF STATE. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15562.) Fish Product of American Fisheries-Definition of Fish Packed in Ice. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 23, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th ultimo, in which, stating that fresh fish are being imported at the port of Sandusky, Ohio, brought from Canadian waters, and entered free as "American caught," under paragraph 568 of the act of August 28, 1894, you inquire whether such fish, that is, fresh-water fish "caught by Americans in Canadian waters, constitute American fisheries." In reply, you are advised that fish caught by a vessel registered under the laws of the United States are the produce of American fisheries. (Synopses 353, 3265 and 3543.) In regard to your inquiry as to the Department's construction of the term "packed in ice," as contained in paragraph 481 of the act of August 28, 1894, viz: "Fish, frozen or packed in ice fresh," I have to state that fresh-water fish, which at the time of importation are in a fresh condition, if packed in ice, either between layers of chopped ice or placed around cakes of ice, or packed in barrels or boxes with ice in any shape or form, would constitute fish "packed in ice, fresh." CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Respectfully, yours, GEO. W. CRITES, Esq., Acting Secretary. Special Agent, Treasury Department, Cincinnati, Ohio. (15563.) Oranges, Lemons and Limes in Barrels not in Bulk-Duty on Shooks containing such Fruit. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 23, 1895. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, I have to state that under the provisions of paragraph 216 of the act of August 28, 1894, boxes or barrels containing imported oranges, lemons, or limes are dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, and said paragraph also provides that "the thin wood, so-called, comprising the sides, tops, and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes, of the growth and manufacture of the United States, exported as orange and lemon box shooks, may be reimported in completed form, filled with oranges and lemons, by the payment of duty at one-half the rate imposed on similar boxes of entirely foreign growth and manufacture." The Department decided, in a letter dated the 10th instant, addressed to the collector of customs at Wilmington, N. C., that oranges imported in barrels were not in bulk, and that consequently the barrels were dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem as "packages." Oranges, lemons, and limes, imported in packages of any kind are dutiable at the rate of 8 cents per cubic foot of capacity, and the packages at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, unless consisting of shooks of the character above mentioned, which would be dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of said paragraph of the tariff act. While paragraph 387 of said act provides for the free admission of "domestic shooks when returned as barrels or boxes," it is held that paragraph 216, which provides for a duty on boxes made partly of American shooks and partly of foreign material, returned filled with oranges, lemons, or limes, is descriptive of a particular kind or class of shooks which are not embraced in said paragraph 387. Respectfully, yours, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Messrs. J. T. STEWART & Co., Exchange street, Bangor, Me. |