Until the expiration of 60 days from the date of this order, all customs ports of entry shall be ports for the entry of antique furniture. Thereafter, the only ports for the entry of antique furniture shall be as follows: New York, N. Y., Boston, Mass., Philadelphia, Pa., Baltimore, Md., New Orleans, La., San Francisco, Calif., Seattle, Wash., and Los Angeles, Calif. Entry for consumption or warehouse shall not be accepted for any furniture claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 1811, nor shall such furniture be examined and appraised elsewhere than at a port of entry for antique furniture; but such furniture may be entered at any port for immediate transportation in bond to a port of entry for antique furniture. For the purpose of these regulations "furniture" is defined as "movable articles of convenience or decoration, designed for use in furnishing a house, apartment, place of business or of accommodation." This definition embraces most articles claimed to be free of duty as artistic antiquities and should any such article be offered for entry elsewhere than at one of the ports for the entry of antique furniture, on the ground that it is not furniture, the facts, including a complete description of the article, should be reported to the department for instructions. No claim for the free entry of any article under paragraph 1811 as an artistic antiquity shall be entertained unless such claim is made at the time of entry, and any evidence as to the antiquity of any article not entered as an artistic antiquity shall be ignored in the appraisement of the merchandise and in the liquidation of the entry. The attention of customs officers and others concerned is specially invited to that part of section 489 which imposes an additional duty of 25 per cent on any article described in paragraph 1811, imported for sale, which is rejected as unauthentic in respect to the antiquity claimed as a basis for free entry. This provision is not limited to furniture, but applies to any article which is claimed to be free of duty under that paragraph on account of its antiquity. In the absence of authority from the department, no article claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 1811 as an artistic antiquity and found upon examination to be unauthentic with respect to the antiquity claimed as the basis of free entry shall be released until the additional duty of 25 per cent provided in section 489 shall have been deposited. All petitions for relief from the payment of the 25 per cent additional duty on the ground that the article was not imported for sale, together with the evidence in support thereof (which shall include an affidavit of the importer) shall be submitted to the department for instructions. (92819-1.) 1432-31-VOL 58 -7 A. W. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury. (T. D. 44166) Port of entry St. Michael, Alaska, abolished as a customs port of entry, effective July 1, 1930 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Washington, D. C., July 26, 1930. To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned: There is published below for the information of customs officers and others concerned the following Executive order, dated June 27, 1930, abolishing St. Michael, Alaska, as a port of entry in customs collection district No. 31 (Alaska), with headquarters at Juneau, Alaska, effective July 1, 1930. (90740-31.) F. X. A. EBLE, Commissioner of Customs. EXECUTIVE ORDER By virtue of the authority vested in me by the act of Congress approved August 1, 1914, making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1915, St. Michael, Alaska, is hereby abolished as a port of entry in customs collection district No. 31 (Alaska), with headquarters at Juneau, Alaska, effective July 1, 1930. HERBERT HOOVER. THE WHITE HOUSE, June 27, 1930. (T. D. 44167) Appeal directed from the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 44079) relative to the classification of tripods TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. Washington, D. C. SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 16, 1930, in which you recommend an appeal from the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 44079) holding that tripods used to support photographic cameras are properly dutiable as parts of such cameras under paragraph 1453 of the tariff act of 1922. In accordance with your recommendation you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for a review of the said decision. F. X. A. EBLE, Commissioner of Customs. Respectfully, Approved July 28, 1930: S. LOWMAN, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. (T. D. 44168) Wool fez caps Appeal directed from the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 44060) involving the classification of wool fez caps TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. Washington, D. C. SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 18, 1930, in which you recommend that an appeal be taken from the decision of the United States Customs Court (T. D. 44060) holding that certain wool fez caps classified as knit wool wearing apparel at the rate of 40 cents per pound and 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1114 of the tariff act of 1922 are properly dutiable as wool wearing apparel, not knit or crocheted, at the rate of 24 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1115 of the said act. In accordance with your recommendation you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for a review of the said decision. Appeal directed from decision of United States Customs Court (Abstract 10421) involving classification of a wool tapestry assessed for duty at 50 per cent under paragraph 1119, tariff act of 1922 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of July 16, 1930, in regard to a decision of the United States Customs Court (Abstract 10421) wherein the court held that a certain wool tapestry classified as a manufacture in chief value of wool at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1119 of the tariff act of 1922 was properly dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1449 of the said act. The bureau approves your action in filing an application with the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for a review of the said decision. Where the president of the importing company is at the same time a director in the foreign company which fixes the prices of a patented article in the home market, he, being thoroughly familiar with all the facts, is charged with the burden of familiarizing himself with the requirements of the tariff act and of making a complete disclosure to customs officials prior to entry. Where a customs official, after interviewing one charged with such burden, approves the entered values, but later, upon receipt of more complete information in a special agent's report, advances those values; Held, a complete and candid disclosure of all the facts in its possession was not made by the importer prior to entry. Petition denied. United States Customs Court, Third Division Petition 3239-R for remission of additional duties imposed by collector of customs at the port of New York [Denied.] (Decided July 21, 1930) Comstock & Washburn (George J. Puckhafer of counsel) for the petitioner. Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (John F. Kavanagh, special attorney), for the United States. Before WAITE, YOUNG, and CLINE, Judges: YOUNG, J., concurring in the result CLINE, Judge: This is a petition for remission of additional duties assessed under section 489, Tariff Act of 1922, for undervaluation of shipments of leather suitcases imported from England. The petition covers five entries, each having been the subject of a reappraisement appeal, and the records in the reappraisement proceedings were moved in evidence by consent and made a part of the record herein. The reappraisement records show that between the dates of March 25 and May 21, 1926, the petitioner imported five shipments of leather suitcases purchased from R. A. Blair of London, England; that all entries were made at the invoice unit prices, less 5 per centum discount, plus cases; that the first four shipments were appraised as entered, but the fifth shipment, entered May 21, was advanced by the appraiser; whereupon the collector filed appeals to reappraisement on the first four shipments and the importer filed an appeal to reappraisement on the fifth shipment. w The record in reappraisement 47658-A shows that in the fifth shipment substantial advances were made by the appraiser in the unit values, less 3% per centum discount, plus cases. There is nothing in the combined records to show the bases of these advances. At the hearing of the petition now before us, Government counsel stated that he had a special agent's report, but as the reappraisement proceedings were disposed of by stipulation this report was not introduced in evidence in the incorporated record and is not before us. In the reappraisement cases, counsel, agreed that the advanced unit values returned by the appraiser in the fifth shipment, less 3% per centum, less 21⁄2 per centum, plus cases, represented the foreign market value of the merchandise in each of the five shipments, and that such foreign market value was higher than the export value thereof. It will be noted that the stipulation results in advances in the entered values on all shipments in accordance with the advances returned by the local appraiser on the fifth shipment, except that an additional 221⁄2 per centum discount was agreed upon in each case. At the hearing in the case at bar, the customs broker who made the entries testified that he had received the invoice from the importer with instructions to make the entry; that he had inquired as to dutiable value from the appraiser's office which had no information, and from Mr. Kennedy of the importing company; that although the suitcases involved herein were patented articles Mr. Kennedy did not inform him of this fact prior to making the first entry, but did so after the first entry had been filed; and that having no other information the witness entered the merchandise at the invoice values. The customs examiner who passed the goods testified that when the broker sought information from him as to dutiable value, he, having no information, examined the merchandise and found it to be a new type of luggage never before imported into the United States; that he then visited the New York offices of the Revelation Suitcase Co. and asked for information with respect to foreign market and export values; and that he interviewed a member of the importer's staff who advised that his firm had the exclusive right to import these patented suitcases into the United States and that he believed they were sold in the home market at the same prices at which they were exported to this country. The examiner testified further that upon this information he appraised the merchandise as invoiced and entered, but at the same time sent for a special agent's report as to foreign market value. The deposition of Mr. E. N. Kennedy, taken at London, England, was admitted in evidence as Exhibit No. 2. This exhibit shows, among |