No. 38217.-MARKET VALUE-ENTERED VALUE.-Protests 770825-55667, etc., of Leo Galitzki et al. (Chicago, etc.). Opinion by Hay, G. A. The protestants in this case claimed that the entries should have been liquidated at the value found upon reappraisement, which was lower than the entered value. Protests overruled. G. A. 7764 (T. D. 35629) followed. No. 38218.-COUNTERVAILING DUTY-WHISKY.-Protests 771778-5754, etc., of Thomas H. Handy & Co. et al. (New Orleans, etc.). Opinion by Hay, G. A. These protests are against the assessment of countervailing duty on whisky under the tariff act of 1913, claiming free entry. Protests overruled. G. A. 7758 (T. D. 35595) cited. No. 38219.-TEA COVERINGS.-Protests 767038-55448, etc., of Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al. (Chicago), and protests 753936, etc., of Frank P. Dow Co. (Seattle). Opinions by Hay, G. A. The merchandise in these cases is the coverings of tea put up in packages of less than 5 pounds, which coverings were claimed free of duty. Protests overruled. Abstract 38142 followed. No. 38220.-COMMISSION-DUTIABLE VALUE.-Protest 765678 of Jos. Yeska (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. The importer claimed that two items of commission should not have been included in the dutiable value. Protest overruled. No. 38221.-BRUSHES FOR BOTTLE-WASHING MACHINES.-Protest 760908 of Philip Wirth (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Brushes to be used on bottle-washing machines, imported with the machines, were classified as brushes under paragraph 336, tariff act of 1913, and claimed dutiable under paragraph 167 as part of the machines with which they were imported as entireties. G. A. 7551 (T. D. 34352) and Denike v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 364; T. D. 34553) cited. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 38222. STEAM TRAWLS.-Protests 758341, etc., of Henry Otte (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Steam trawls were held properly classified as manufactures of vegetable fiber under paragraph 284, tariff act of 1913, rather than entitled to free entry under subsections 5 and 6, paragraph J, section 4. United States v. Sickel (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 35394) and T. D. 34150 cited. No. 38223.-CARBONS FOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS.-Protests 757397, etc., of H. M. Hirschberg et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Electric light carbons classified under the fifth provision of paragraph 82, tariff act of 1913, as carbons for flaming arc lamps, not specially provided for, were claimed dutiable under other provisions in the same paragraph or under paragraph 81. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 38224.-TEA COVERINGS.-Protests 769553-55559, etc., of Corbin Sons & Co. et al. (Chicago, etc.). HAY, General Appraiser: These are protests against the collector's assessment of duty on coverings of tea consisting of sheet lead, paper, cardboard, etc., under appropriate provisions of the tariff act of 1913. Each of the packages or containers of tea contain less than 5 pounds. It is not apparent from the testimony in these cases that the packages of tea were contained in other than wooden boxes or crates as prepared for shipment. This case we think differs in no respect upon principle from that which was the subject of this board's decision in Wright & Graham Co.'s case, Abstract 38142, the coverings here in question being like those covered by Schedule C of that decision. Following Wright & Graham Co.'s case, supra, the protests are overruled. 2150-VOL 29-15-10 BEFORE BOARD 1, AUGUST 5, 1915. No. 38225.-PAINTS-COLORS.-Protest 749458 of Gerstendorfer Bros. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A. Merchandise classified as chemical compounds under paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913, was claimed dutiable as colors or paints (par. 63). Protest sustained. Abstract 37926 followed. BEFORE BOARD 2, AUGUST 5, 1915. No. 38226.-ADDITIONAL DUTY-ANTIMONY.-Protest 763050 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). FISCHER, General Appraiser: On an importation of a quantity of antimony while the tariff act of 1909 was in force the entered value was advanced 20 per cent by the appraiser, from whose action the importers took no appeal. The merchandise, however, was not withdrawn for consumption until after the passage of the present tariff act. Under the provisions of the act in effect on the date of importation, the advance then made imposed no penalty on the importers, as their goods were then subject to a specific rate of duty, but under the present act, which was in force at the time of the withdrawal, the goods were subjected to an ad valorem rate of duty, and if imported thereunder would undoubtedly, as conceded by the importers, be liable to a penalty of 1 per cent for each 1 per cent advance. In the light of these facts the importers contend that no penalty can be legally imposed by reason of the advance made by the appraiser at the time of importation when no penalty attached thereto under the then existing law, and that to penalize the-importation now would in effect be a retroactive and consequently an illegal act. For the reasons set forth In re Isaacs, Vought & Co., G. A. 200 (T. D. 10550); In re W. H. Horstmann Co., G. A. 7757 (T. D. 35594); and In re Caballero & Blanco, G. A. 7740 (T. D. 35530), we overrule the protest and affirm the decision of the collector. No. 38227.-STEEL SHEETS MADE BY CRUCIBLE PROCESS-STEEL STRIPS.-Protests 763908, etc., of Geo. Nash Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Steel sheets made by the crucible process and cut to certain size, classified as steel not specially provided for under paragraph 110, tariff act of 1913, were claimed dutiable as "crucible plate steel and saw plates, cut or sheared to shape or otherwise, or unsheared" (par. 105). A further claim was made that merchandise classified as steel sheets, cold rolled, smoothed only, under paragraph 109 was properly dutiable as steel strips (par. 105). Protest 763908 covering the former class of merchandise overruled, and protest 764481 covering the latter class sustained. Universal Shipping Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 245; T. D. 33479) cited. No. 38228.-DRUMS CONTAINING SULPHIDE OF SODIUM-IRON DRUMS-CONTAINERS.-Protest 752139 of Geisenheimer & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Certain sheet metal drums containing sulphide of sodium were held entitled to free entry as usual containers, as claimed. No. 38229.-CARDBOARD-PAPER-BOX BOARD.-Protest 751460 of Blake, Moffitt & Towne (San Francisco). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Merchandise classified as cardboard under paragraph 328, tariff act of 1913, was claimed dutiable as "common paper-box board" (par. 320). Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 38230.—ALUMINUM SPOONS.-Protest 748344 of J. J. Buchey & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Following G. A. 7662 (T. D. 35049) aluminum spoons classified under paragraph 134, tariff act of 1913, were held properly dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 167). No. 38231.-BUDDING KNIVES-FRUNING KNIVES.-Trotests 742430, etc., of J. D. Irwin & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Budding knives and pruning knives were held properly classified under the specific provisions therefor in paragraph 128, tariff act of 1913. G. A. 7735 (T. D. 35499) followed. No. 38232.-SILK DRESS GOODS-WOVEN SILK FABRIC.-Protest 774684 of F. Costa (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Silk dress goods classified as silk embroidery under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, were claimed dutiable as woven silk fabric (par. 318). Protest sustained. No. 38233.-PINCUSHIONS, BISQUE CHIEF VALUE.-Protest 770076 of F. L. Kraemer & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Pincushions classified under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, as in chief value of silk or cotton, and appliquéd, were found to be in chief value of bisque and dutiable accordingly under paragraph 80. As this claim was not made, protest overruled. No. 38234.-UNION TOWELS.-Protests 754210, etc., of Schofield & Walter (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Union towels classified under paragraph 284, tariff act of 1913. as manufactures composed in chief value of flax, were found to be in chief value of cotton, as claimed, and dutiable accordingly under paragraph 264. No. 38235.-CRASH WITH FANCY BORDER-TOWELING LINEN CRASH.-Protest 748152 of Chas. H. Wyman & Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Merchandise consisting of linen crash, classified as manufactures of flax under paragraph 284, tariff act of 1913, and claimed dutiable as a plain woven fabric (par. 283), was found to be crash with fancy border. Protest overruled. United States v. Douglas (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 35342) followed. No. 38236.-TABLE CENTERS DRAWN WORK ARTICLES.-Protests 740173, etc., of No. 38237.-COTTON BAGGING.-Protests 730549-4661, etc., of Illinois Central Railroad Co. et al. (New Orleans). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Following Hawley v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 35322) protests sustained as to cotton bagging claimed dutiable under paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. BEFORE BOARD 3, AUGUST 5, 1915. No. 38238.-WEIGHT OF IVORY.-Protest 774850 of American Express Co. (Boston). Opinion by Waite, G. A. The importers claimed in this case that the difference in weight between the weigher's return, upon which duty was assessed, and that shown on the invoice, was due to the ivory having increased in weight by absorption of moisture while in transit. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 38239.-NURSERY STOCK-PROTEST SIGNED BY WRONG PARTY.-Protest 77485556296 of Vaughn's Seed Store (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A. The Government's motion to dismiss protest on the ground that it was signed by wrong party overruled, it being shown that it was signed by agent for importer. The merchandise in question is nursery stock classified under paragraph 211, tariff act of 1913, and claimed free of duty as "works of art, collections in illustration of the progress of the arts" (par. 654). Protest overruled. No. 38240.-WEIGHT OF CHEESE-VALUE OF CHEESE-AD VALOREM DUTY UNDER TARIFF ACT OF 1913 RATHER THAN SPECIFIC DUTY UNDER ACT OF 1909.-Protest 771666 of Coroneos Bros. (Philadelphia). WAITE, General Appraiser: This protest concerns an importation of cheese from Greece. It had been assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 196, tariff act of 1913. The importers protest because the collector has failed to make an allowance in the value for the decrease in weight, stating that the cheese is packed in brine, and any loss of brine does not enhance the value of the cheese, as it has to be re-brined. Under the preceding law cheese paid a specific duty by the pound. Under the present law it pays an ad valorem duty. We gather from the evidence and the record that the weight of the cheese on shipment from Greece, and as stated in the invoice, does not correspond with the weight of the cheese found by the weigher in the United States upon landing. We are not perfectly clear as to what the reason is, but it would seem as though it is caused by a disintegration of the cheese, some of it passing into the brine in which it is shipped. The brine not being dutiable is considered part of the tare by the weigher, and the fine particles of cheese contained in it are not taken account of, which probably accounts for the discrepancy between the invoice weight and the landed weight, as found by the weigher. This shrinkage is what has given rise to the claim of the importer. He claims that as the cheese weighs less on importation, duty should be paid only on the weight reported by the weigher at the price fixed in the invoice. That perhaps would have been true had his price been maintained on reappraisement of the goods. Such, however, does not seem to have been the case as the appraiser has fixed the unit value of the goods at a price which, approximately at least, is the price which has been used as the basis of the liquidation. There are two invoices in this case, and the circumstances are the same. To illustrate the conditions we will make use of invoice 311. The gross invoice weight is 11,307.39 pounds; the tare is 2,488.99 pounds; and the net weight is given as 8.818.40 pounds, the kilograms of the invoice being reduced to pounds in each instance. The weigher's return, which seems to have been approved by the surveyor, gives gross weight as 12,285 pounds; the tare as 3,875 pounds; and the net weight as 8,410 pounds, thus showing a reduction of the net invoice weight of 408 pounds. The invoice price per kilogram is 1.15 drachmas, which, multiplied by the net weight, gives 4,600 drachmas. We gather from the face of the invoice and return thereon, in red ink by the appraiser, that it was appraised at 1.20 drachmas, which being multiplied by the amount given as the weight by the Government weigher produces approximately the same total or extended amount as found in the invoice. No reappraisement was asked for by the importer; hence the liquidation must be on the basis of the last appraisement. The appraisal is presumed to be of the unit value of the goods, the unit in this case being the kilogram. Had the importer been dissatisfied with the price fixed by the appraiser he should have appealed. The liquidation should be made on the basis of 1.20 drachmas per kilogram. If the value is 1.15 drachmas as claimed by the importer, that should have been shown by reappraisement. We have no power to change the appraised value, fraud or illegal methods not having been shown. What is true of the invoice cited is also true of the other invoice in the case. The collector will therefore liquidate on the basis of the appraised unit value. No. 38241.-WEight of Cheese.-Protest 765348 of Coroneos Bros. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Waite, G. A. The board held that the weight as assessed of certain cheese in brine imported from Greece was correct, and therefore overruled the protest. No. 38242.-MARBLE ARTICLES-SCULPTURES-WORKS OF ART.-Protests 772831, etc., of J. Friedenberg & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Various articles of marble classified as manufactures of marble under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1913, were claimed free of duty under paragraph 652, or dutiable under paragraph 376. Protests sustained in part. No. 38243.-TULIP BULBS.-Protests 771320-55675, etc., of International Forwarding Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Tulip bulbs classified under the provision for tulips in paragraph 210, tariff act of 1913, were claimed dutiable under the same paragraph as "all other bulbs." Protests overruled. Abstract 38202 followed. No. 38244.-BARLEY SCREENINGS.-Protest 762095 of H. Poehler Co. (Minneapolis). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Merchandise invoiced as barley screenings, classified as barley under paragraph 188, tariff act of 1913, was claimed dutiable as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article (par. 385). Protest overruled. Note Schade v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 465; T. D. 35002). No. 38245.-ARTIFICIAL FRUIT-PINCUSHIONS.-Protest 762825 of Mogi Momonoi & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Merchandise consisting of an outer covering of colored silk inclosing cotton, intended for a pincushion, was held properly classified under paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, as "artificial and ornamental fruits." G. A. 7716 (T. D. 35333) followed. No. 38246.-MATERIAL FOR MAKING RUGS-SAMPLES.-Protest 753870 of Wyman, Partridge & Co. (Detroit). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Material out of which rugs are made, varying in size from 9 by 12 inches to 11 by 18 inches, classified as manufactures of wool under paragraph 288, tariff act of 1913, was claimed entitled to free entry as samples. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 38247.-TEA COVERINGS.-Protests 763226, etc., of John A. Conkey & Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Tea packed in tin foil and cardboard packages of less than five pounds each, classified under appropriate provisions of the tariff act of 1913, was claimed free of duty under paragraph 627. Protests overruled. Abstract 38142 followed. No. 38248.-SHIP'S EQUIPMENT-PANAMA CANAL ACT.-Protest 779309 of A. E. Outerbridge & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. The merchandise in this case consisted of various articles and materials for use in building a triple expansion engine and propelling equipment for installation in the British steamer Princess under construction in a Brooklyn shipyard. It was assessed under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, and claimed entitled to free entry under the provisions of section 4132 of Revised Statutes as amended by section 5 of the Panama Canal act (37 U. S. Stat., 560; T. D. 32956). Protest sustained. G. A. 7668 (T. D. 35086) noted. No. 38249.-COUNTERVAILING DUTY-SPLIT PEASE.-Protest 767537-5605 of Oberle & Henry (New Orleans). Opinion by Hay, G. A. An importation of split pease, classified under paragraph 209, tariff act of 1913, was assessed an additional duty under the provisions of paragraph E of section 4 of the same act. The importer's protest against this additional duty sustained on the authority of T. D. 33953. |