To this amount the United States appraiser reported, add for charges, francs 85. The appraiser's addition being more than 10 per cent. of the entered value and charges, an additional duty of 20 per cent. was assessed by you on the value of the merchandise, and on the aggregate of charges, viz: Francs 927.15. Having in view the position taken by the court in the case of Passavant vs. Merritt, wherein it was held that an undervaluation in an entry of merchandise of 10 per cent. or more would cause the additional duty of 20 per cent., imposed by section 2900, Revised Statutes, to accrue on the appraised value, but not on the charges, the Department states its opinion of the requirements of the law as follows: 1st. Where the appraised value of merchandise exceeds by 10 per cent. or more the value of the merchandise stated in the entry, an additional duty of 20 per cent. is to be imposed under section 2900, Revised Statutes, on the appraised value of the merchandise, but not on the charges. 2d. Where charges, which section 2907 declares shall form part of the dutiable value of merchandise, are omitted in the entry, and are added by the proper officer, an additional duty of 20 per cent. is to be imposed, under section 2908, on the dutiable value of the merchandise, made up of the appraised value and of the charges stated in the entry and those added by the proper officer, whenever such addition for charges shall exceed by 10 per cent. or more the value of the merchandise delared in the entry. The standard by which to measure the percentage of advance for charges added by the customs officers is the entered value of the merchandise, and not the charges stated in the entry. These views, while not in full harmony with those stated in the opinion of the Attorney-General on the Passavant case, are believed to form a proper basis for administration of the law until the questions involved shall have been more fully settled by the courts. Following the views so declared, it is held in the Lehman case that, as the charges added by the appraiser exceeded by 10 per cent. the value of the merchandise declared in the entry, an additional duty of 20 per cent. accrues under section 2908 on the dutiable value of the merchandise. Hence your decision is affirmed. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. H. F. FRENCH, (5160.) Fastenings for cars, &c., transporting unappraised merchandise. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 20, 1882. The supply of locks being exhausted, "seal-holders" will, until otherwise ordered, be furnished for fastening cars and vessels employed in the transportation of merchandise without appraisement, under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1880. The "seal-holders" are consecutively numbered and are made to carry the customs seals now used. The instructions of the Department, dated July 21, 1879 (Synopsis 4106), relating to customs locks and seals, will be understood as applying, in every particular, to the "sealholders" herein referred to. Serviceable customs locks on hand at the several ports will continue to be used as heretofore. CHAS. J. FOLGER, COLLECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS. Secretary. (5161.) Jet and bead jewelry-Duty on. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 20, 1882. SIR: This Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, transmitting the appeal (9852 g) of Calhoun, Robbins & Co. from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem on certain so-called jewelry imported, per "St. Laurent," September 23, 1881. You state that the appeal is submitted to the Department for instructions as to whether jet and bead ornaments are covered by the decision of December 20, 1881, relative to jewelry. The report of the appraiser, accompanying your letter, states that "All articles of jewelry covered by appeal 5192 are entitled to reclassification at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem under the Department decision" above referred to, "the goods being ornaments and ear-drops which are used as jewelry," and that certain other goods, covered by appeals 16 and 263 (not transmitted), consist of imitation jet ornaments, which, although they are intended to be worn as jewelry, he does not feel authorized to reclassify as such "without special authority from the Department." It is not understood from his report that the appeal transmitted by you covers jet ornaments or imitations thereof, or beads, or bead ornaments. Schedule M imposes duties at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem on "jet manufactures and imitations of," a duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem on "all beads and bead ornaments, except amber," and 25 per cent. ad valorem on precious stones "when set in gold, silver, or other metal, or on imitations thereof," and on "all other jewelry." In the case of Hecht vs. Arthur, tried in the Supreme Court, it was decided that steel brooches, brass ear-rings, gilt chains, gilt ear-drops and bracelets, and ornaments of the same kind made of horn, shell, ivory, and various materials, must be classified under the provision above quoted, for all other jewelry. No articles consisting of jet or beads were directly covered by the decision. The Department, however, is of opinion that the provision for jewelry is more specific than that relating to jet, and that articles of jet, consisting of jewelry, may be treated as within the principles of the decision, and holds, further, that the provision for beads, &c., should not be construed as applying thereto, when they merely form a part of articles of jewelry, not known commercially, or otherwise, as beads or bead ornaments, and that such jewelry may also be treated as covered, in principle, by the decision of the court. You may take action accordingly. Very respectfully, H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (5162.) Common carriers-Fastenings for cars, &c.. transporting unappraised mer chandise. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 20, 1882. The supply of locks being exhausted, "seal-holders" will, until otherwise ordered, be furnished for fastening cars and vessels employed in the transportation of merchandise without appraisement, under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1880. The "seal-holders" are consecutively numbered and are made to carry the customs seals now used. The instructions of the Department, dated July 21, 1879 (Synopsis 4106), relating to customs locks and seals, will be understood as applying, in every particular, to the "sealholders" herein referred to. Serviceable customs locks on hand at the several ports will continue to be used as heretofore. CHAS. J. FOLGER, Secretary. COLLECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS. (5163.) Paper envelopes for needles—Not separately dutiable. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 21, 1882. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, transmitting the appeal (9856 g) of Jno. Thornton & Co. from your decision assessing a separate duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem on certain paper envelopes containing needles imported, per "Parthia," October 28, 1881, which the appellants claim should be subjected to the same rate of duty as the needles, viz., 25 per cent. ad valorem. An inspection of a sample shows that several papers of the needles are contained in one envelope, such envelope being an appropriate inclosure for the purpose. In the opinion of the Department the appeal is well taken, inasmuch as the envelopes, which are simply incidental to the needles, should be considered under section 2907, Revised Statutes, as forming an element of the dutiable value thereof. You will reliquidate the entry accordingly. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 21, 1882. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, transmitting the appeal (9666 g) of J. Rosenthal & Co. from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem on certain so-called dolls imported, per "Augusta," September 30, 1881, which the appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, as dolls. A sample of the importation shows that the merchandise consists of figures with the ordinary head of a doll, with a body partly of wood and partly of wire, covered with a dress, the hands holding cymbals, which are pressed together upon touching a spring. The article, while possessing features not usually incident to dolls, belongs to that general class of articles, and the Department is of opinion that they may properly be classified at a duty of 35 per cent. You will readjust the entry accordingly. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 21, 1882. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, submitting the appeal (9794g) of Messrs. John T. Bailey & Co. from your assessment of duty without allowance of tare for bands on certain Russian hemp imported by them, per "Bolivia," October 24, 1881. The appellants claim that the bands are composed of hemp tow, and are used for paper stock, and the appraiser's report shows this claim to be correct, and that the material is unfit for spinning, as it can be "separated" only at considerable expense. The article seems to be of the same general character as the cuttings or pieces of rope for binding bales of jute or of jute butts, and which, as they were to be used as paper stock, were admitted free of duties, under authority of the Department's letter of June 21, 1877. Russia hemp is dutiable at a higher rate than tow, and it is understood that were such bands imported separately, they would be admitted free of duties as paper stock. The Department is of opinion, therefore, that their weight may be allowed for as tare, in the assessment of duties on the importation in question. * * * It should be observed that the ropes mentioned in Department's de |