(5088.) Iron turnings-Duty on. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 5, 1882. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo, in relation to the proper classification of certain iron turnings transported in bond to Cincinnati (entry 308), which were assessed with duty at the rate of $8 per ton, as wrought scrap-iron. Under Department's ruling of June 25, 1867 (printed), iron filings are held to be dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, as "manufactures of iron not otherwise provided for," and, in the opinion of the Department, this ruling applies with equal force to iron turnings. You are therefore directed to reliquidate the entry at your port accordingly, and to forward to the surveyor of customs at Cincinnati an amended transportation entry, in order that he may readjust the entry at that port. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port Huron, Mich. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. (5089.) Iron hoops-Duty on. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 6, 1882. SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 7th ultimo, submitting the appeal (6545g) of J. J. McComb from your assessment of duty at the rate of 13 cents per pound on certain iron hoops imported, per "Helvetia," June 6, 1881. The merchandise was classified by you under the provision in Schedule E for hoop, band, or scroll iron, while the appellant claims that it is dutiable only at 35 per cent. ad valorem, as a manufacture of iron not otherwise provided for. The sample of the merchandise submitted shows that it is a completely manufactured hoop, splayed and ready for use. The ends of the hoops as imported, however, are not riveted together as in ordinary hoops, but one end of the hoop has a projecting stud or rivet, and the other end is punched with a hole to receive the rivet when the ends are joined together, as the hoop is placed on the barrel. In the opinion of the Department these hoops are completely manufactured articles, fitted for use without further labor, and are therefore dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, as claimed by the appellant. You will readjust the entry accordingly, and forward a certified statement for a refund of the excess of duty exacted. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. (5090) Rebate of duties on goods destroyed or injured by fire. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 6, 1882. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, further in regard to applications for refund of duties on merchandise injured or destroyed by fire, which occurred at a covered wharf within your district sometime since. Section 2984 of the Revised Statutes confers upon the Secretary of the Treasury (upon proof satisfactory to him) the power to remit or refund duties on goods injured or destroyed by accidental fire or other casualty while within the custody of the officers of the customs, and not in bond, or while within the limits of any port of entry, and before the same have been landed under the supervision of an officer of the customs. The goods in question were entered for consumption on arrival, and on deposit of the duties a permit was issued to the inspector in charge of the vessel, authorizing the landing of the same. The goods were landed under such permit, and remained on the dock at the time of the fire. In some cases a portion of them only had been weighed, while in others none had been weighed. The question upon which the cases turn is, whether, under the circumstances, the goods were, at the time of the fire, within the custody of the officers of the customs. The wharf on which the goods were landed, although an inspector of customs is stationed thereon, is under the control of the steamship company. It is the duty of the inspector, however, to see, as required by section 2882 of the Revised Statutes, that the goods are not removed from the wharf before they are weighed, gauged, or measured, in order to ascertain the duties due thereon. When the inspector was placed in charge of the vessel, and before the goods were landed, they were clearly in the custody of the officer of the customs, and, in my opinion, the goods were not released from such custody until the weighing, gauging, or measuring, required by the law to be performed, was completed. Of course the prohibition created by section 2882 against the removal from the wharf before weighing does not create a custody, but the custody acquired before the goods left the vessel was not released until the acts required by the section of law cited had been performed. In this light the case of DeGraw, Aymar & Co. was correctly decided in the letter of the 14th ultimo. Other cases of similar character will be disposed of by the Department, as they arise, on the principles herein laid down. SIR: This Department is is receipt of your letter dated the 25th of November last, inquiring under what provision of the tariff "stearine in cakes" should be classified. You report that the article to which you refer is a white wax-like substance, fit to be made into candles. Experts state that such stearine could not be economically used as soap-stock; and, as it is a product of a manufacturing process, the Department is of opinion that it should be classified under the provisions of section 2516 of the Revised Statutes, "for all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not enumerated or provided for in the tariff.” You may take action accordingly, on the importation of the merchandise at your port. I inclose herewith, for your further information, a copy of a letter dated the 5th of November last, addressed to the collector of customs at New York, relating to certain so-called stearine, which consisted of a residuum obtained in the manufacture of candles, and was variously known as "hard pitch," "candle tar," "candle residuum," and "colopony." You will perceive that the Department decided that such merchandise was also dutiable, under the provision above cited, at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 7, 1882. SIR: This Department is in receipt of your letter dated the 29th ultimo, transmitting the appeal (8383 g) of Messrs. Hayward, Perry & Francklyn from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 40 cents per gallon on certain wine in casks imported, per "Trinacria," June 28, 1881. The appellants claim that the article contains no alcohol, and is the pure juice of the grape, dutiable as such at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem only, under the provisions of the tariff for “fruit-juice." 鳥 It appears from the report of the appraiser that the article "is simply an unfermented wine invoiced as 'Gallipoli wine,' and is similar to unfermented wine imported for use in the religious services of the Hebrew church." The Department has heretofore ruled that the juice of oranges, resembling wine, should be classified as wine, and that certain so-called "weinmost," consisting, as stated by the appraiser, of new or unfermented wine, was dutiable, under the provision for still wines, at the rate of 40 cents per gallon. The article in question being similar to that last mentioned, is subject to the same rate of duty, and your decision is therefore affirmed. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. H. F. FRENCH, (5093.) Repairs and refurnishing of Pullman palace-cars running from Canada to the United States-Not dutiable TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 9, 1882. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, inclosing one from George F. Brown, superintendent of the Pullman Palace-Car Company, requesting information upon the question whether the repairs and refurnishing of the cars of said company, used or run between Montreal and Boston on the Central Vermont Railway, are liable to duty on the passage of such cars into the United States. From the papers submitted, it appears that the Pullman Car Company have a shop in Montreal where these cars are refurnished as occasion may require. It is understood that in some cases such cars are leased by the railroad over which they run under a contract which obligates the railroad company to maintain, at its own expense, all parts of the cars except the carpets, upholstery, and bedding, which are kept in order by the Pullman Company. Under date of April 27, 1870, by letter to the collector of customs at Port Huron, and of December 3, 1878, in letter to your office, this Department adopted the principle that cars running between Canada and the United States for international traffic, which might even be used to some extent for local traffic, were not to be regarded as importations liable to duty. This position was taken without reference to the question whether the cars were built in Canada or in the United States. Upon the principle adopted, that the cars, when completely furnished in the first instance, are not liable to duty, I see no reason why the expense of refurnishing such cars, under the circumstances stated, should make the materials used in such refurnishing liable to customs duties, and this Department will interpose no objection to the passage of such cars free of duty when used in traffic of the character mentioned. You are authorized to furnish the agent of the Pullman Car Company with a copy hereof. Very respectfully, CHAS. J. FOLGER, Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Burlington, Vt. (5094.) Invoice weight of goods paying ad valorem duty. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 9, 1882. SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 12th ultimo, reporting upon one from the naval officer relative to the adjustment |