appraisement over 10 per cent above the entered value, but not sufficient to render it liable to a higher rate of duty, is liable to the additional (penal) duty of 20 per cent ad valorem which is prescribed by section 2900 of the Revised Statutes.

The question was duly referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who on the 9th instant submitted an opinion, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, from which it will be seen that he advises that in such cases where an appraisement is made by the appraiser for the purpose of determining the values of imported merchandise, the advance in value of 10 per cent renders the exaction of the said additional duty imperative by the collector, who has no discretion in the matter, because the law fixes his duty.

This opinion seems to accord with article 564 of the Regulations, which prescribes that if the specific duty is all dependent upon value, the additional duty attaches, if the value is advanced 10 per cent or more; and it is apprehended that in the case of all importations where it is essential, under the statute, that the goods should be appraised, the additional duty attaches whenever the appraised value exceeds the entered value by 10 per cent or more. - (7260.) The following is the Solicitor's opinion referred to above:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D. C., December 9, 1885.

SIR: The question is asked me whether the additional duty of 20 per cent ad valorem is incurred under section 2900, Revised Statutes, when the appraised value of wool exceeds by 10 per cent the value declared in the entry, though such appraised value is not sufficient in amount to subject the wool to the higher rate of duty.

The law imposes duties on wool at specific rates regulated by value. For example: wools valued at 30 cents or less a pound are subject to a duty of 10 cents a pound; exceeding 30 cents, 12 cents a pound.

Section 2900 is one of several statutes enacted to require importers to make entry of their goods at their true value.*

In the present case the duty imposed is not an ad valorem one; it is a specific duty of so much a pound, dependent on the appraised value of the pound.

The main object of section 2900 is not, it seems to me, to collect duties. Its purpose is to compel importers to enter their goods at their proper value. For this purpose, when the invoice is produced and the entry is made, the importer is allowed to make such additions in the entry to the cost or value given in the invoice as he may see fit. But if, after entry, the appraised value of the goods exceeds by 10 per cent the entered value, the exaction of 20 per cent duty is made imperative on the collector. He is given no discretion in the matter, because the law fixes his duties. (5 Blatch., 38.)

If I am right, it is immaterial to the question presented whether an advance by appraisement over the entered value increases the duty placed on the goods or not, so long as the appraisement increases the value 10 per cent or more over the entered value.

Such increase being made, the collector is, under the law, to impose the 25 per cent additional duty.

Very respectfully,

The Hon. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

A. MCCUE,

Solicitor.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 2, 1886. MATELASSÉ, WOOL.-The Department duly received your letter of the 16th ultimo, transmitting the appeal (8584 m) of Meyer & Dickinson from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain so-called matelassé cloths imported, per Waesland and Pennsylvania Railroad, October 30, 1885, and returned by the appraiser at your port as silk, wool, and cotton clothing, or manufactures of wool, dutiable under T. I., new, 365.

It applies to all goods procured by purchase or otherwise, the duty on which depends on their

Reference being made in your letter to Department's decision of April 24, 1885, (synopsis, 6875), in support of your assessment of duty as aforesaid, it is deemed proper to call your attention to a clerical error in said decision in the designation of the paragraph in Schedule K under which duties should be assessed.

In cases where the merchandise is composed in part of wool, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animal, and does not fall within the specific provisions for women's and children's dress-goods, coat-linings, Italian cloths, and goods of like description, found in paragraph 365, T. I., new, it should be classified for duty under the provisions therefor in paragraph 362 or 363 of the tariff, and not under paragraph 365, as aforesaid.

The decision referred to will therefore be considered as corrected in the above particular, the principle therein set forth being in nowise modified.

In the present case, it being understood that the merchandise is composed in part of wool and does not fall within the specific provisions of paragraph 365, it is dutiable at the rate assessed under T. I., new, 362, and your assessment of duty is accordingly affirmed. (7295.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 4, 1886. CARRIAGE-ROBES AND TRAVELING RUGS AND BLANKETS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo reporting further on the appeal (6682 m) of Messrs. H. H. Schwietering, Stursberg & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain wool and hair blankets imported by them, per Neckar, July 7, 1885.

The appellants claim that the blankets in question are properly dutiable at the rate of 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 363, act of March 3, 1883.

The appraiser reports that the articles in question are carriage robes or traveling rugs, which are not known commercially as blankets, and that they were classified as manufactures of wool and hair under paragraph 362, act of March 3, 1883.

In view of the Department's decision of September 21, 1859 (not published), which held that articles of this character are not blankets within the meaning of the law, your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. (7298.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 15, 1886. LEATHER JACKETS LINED WITH WOOL.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 12th ultimo. transmitting the appeal (8295 m) of A. Knudsen from your assessment of duty at the rate of 40 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain skin jackets imported, per Thingvalla, November 30, 1885, and returned by the appraiser at your port as wearing-apparel in part of wool, dutiable under the provisions of T. I., new, 366.

It appears from the report of the appraiser that the articles in question are leather jackets or short coats, for men, lined throughout with wool flannel, and that, as there was no provision in the law for leather wearing-apparel, the merchandise was classified as above.

This classification is in accordance with the principle laid down in Department's decisions of April 18 (synopsis, 6862), May 2 (synopsis, 6897), and October 27, 1885 (synopsis, 7184), and your assessment of duty accordingly is hereby affirmed. (7317.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 27, 1886. MOUSSELINE-DE-LAINE DRESS GOODS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, transmitting the appeal (1330 o) of Messrs. Kaskel & Kaskel from

your decision assessing duty at the rate of 9 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem upon certain so-called flannels imported, per Amerique, October 1, 1885, which the appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem.

It appears, from the report of the appraiser and an inspection of a sample, that the merchandise in question is not flannel, but women's and children's dress goods, consisting of fabrics known as "mousseline-de-laine," manufactured of worsted.

Being women's and children's dress goods, and being composed wholly of worsted, they are dutiable under the provisions of Schedule K (T. I., new, 365) for goods of that description, which is the rate assessed by you.

Your decision is affirmed. (7331.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 27, 1886. MEXICAN WOOLS.-The Department duly received your letter of the 25th ultimo, with inclosures, reporting in the matter of the appeal (1708 o) of Mr. James J. Haynes from your assessment of duty at the rate of 10 cents per pound on certain wool imported by him at Laredo on the 4th ultimo, and which was classified by your deputy at that port as wool of class 1, costing under 30 cents per pound, and dutiable under T. I., new, 357.

The appellant claims that the wool in question is carpet wool, or wool of the third class, valued at less than 12 cents per pound, and dutiable, under T. I., new, 359, at the rate of 24 cents per pound.

The sample referred to by the appellant and forwarded by you has been duly submitted to the appraiser, examiner of wools, and Mr. George William Bond, wool expert, at Boston, all of whom agree that the sample in composed of a very poor quality of Mexican wool mixed with first class or merino wool (the proportion of merino wool on sorting the sample being found to be 24 per cent), and that while the presence of wool of the first class renders the importation liable to the duty assessed, yet it would be manifestly unjust to assess that rate upon such poor material. This agrees in substance with the reports heretofore received by you from Baltimore and New York, based on other samples of the importation in question.

The Department, therefore, decides that the wool in the present mixed condition is liable to duty at the rate assessed; but in view of the opinions expressed by the customs officials at Boston, as above stated, you are authorized to have importations of mixed wools of this character sorted for purposes of correct classification and to assess duty on the respective quantities of wool of the several classes in accordance with the rates provided therefor in the tariff.

This course may be followed in the present case, and the entry adjusted accordingly, provided the merchandise still remains within your custody and control; otherwise, your assessment of duty will stand affirmed.

The entry received with your letter is herewith returned. Sample returned under another cover. (7384.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 10, 1886.

WORSTED COATINGS, COMPOSED in part of WOOL.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, submitting the appeal (4109 o) of Messrs. Sulzbacher, Gitterman & Wedeles from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, on certain worsted coatings (so called) imported by them, per Rialto, August 26, 1885.

The appraiser reports that the goods in question were composed of wool, worsted, and cotton, and that the claim of the appellants that they contained no wool is incorrect.

Goods composed in part of wool are expressly excluded from classification under paragraph 363, act of March 3, 1883, and your assessment of duty on the goods in question, under paragraph 362 of said act, as manufactures * made wholly or in part of wool," was correct, and is hereby affirmed. (7402.)

*

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 29, 1886.

DONSKOI WOOL-The Department duly received your letters of the 28th of November and 2d of December last, respectively, concerning the appeal (7513 m) of Wood & Payson, from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 74 cents per pound on certain wool of the third class imported into your port, per European, September 7, 1885, which the appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 24 cents per pound.

The said wool consists of Russian wool known as Donskoi, a coarse carpet wool, which is valued at less than 12 cents per pound in an unwashed condition, and the question involved in this appeal is whether the wool is scoured, and liable to "three times the duty to which it would be subjected if imported unwashed" (T. I., new, 356), as classified by you, or whether it is simply washed, and as such liable to the single rate prescribed for third class (carpet-wools) in a washed or unwashed condition (T. I., new, 359), as claimed by the appellants.

This wool, as an inspection of the samples shows, is in the condition in which similar wools have been imported for many years-that is, it has been washed after shearing, and contains about 10 per cent of dirt and impurities.

These Russian Donskoi wools, as a large mass of testimony on file at the Department conclusively indicates, have for the past twenty years and more been imported into the United States in substantially the same condition as the wool in question, and until this instance have invariably been classified by the customs officers as washed; that they have been and are now commercially recognized in Russia as washed, having only undergone the usual process of washing wools practiced in that country, and that manufacturers in the United States who purchase said wools subject them to the process of scouring before using. On the other hand, it is represented that because the wool is washed after it has been sheared from the sheep, and is in a comparatively clean condition, it is scoured, but the proofs to sustain such representations are conflicting, unsatisfactory, and inconclusive.

After careful consideration, the Department concludes that as the said wool is of the same character and in substantially the same condition as the Donskoi wools which have been for such a long period of time commercially known and classified as unscoured wools, there is no good reason at this time (the more especially in the absence of any new legislation on the subject) to change the practice by classifying and subjecting it to the greatly increased duty now proposed.

It is, therefore, held that the appeal is well taken, and that the appellants are entitled to a reliquidation of their entry in accordance with their claim.

The views herein expressed will also apply to the entries of all importations of such wools in like condition which await liquidation at your port. (7438.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 20, 1886.

WOOL AND MOHAIR NOILS.—I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, transmitting a report from the appraiser at your port concerning the practice in classifying for duty imported wool and mohair noils.

Under the existing rulings of the Department, noils are to be classified as the wools from which they are made, so that if the noils come from class 1 wool, and are either washed or scoured, they should, if washed, pay twice the rate, and, if scoured, three times the rate of duty to which the wool would have been liable if imported

in an unwashed condition. Noils made from class 2 wool and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals (including mohair noils, cashmere noils, etc.), only pay increased duty if imported scoured; and when in that condition they are liable to three times the rate to which the wool or hair is liable in an unwashed condition. If these last-mentioned noils are simply washed and not scoured, they pay but a single rate of duty.

You are directed to cause the practice at your port to conform to these views, and to instruct the appraiser to consider decision, Synopsis, 1404, as modified to accord herewith. (7470.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 21, 1886.

WEARDALE CARPETS OR CRUMB CLOTHS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, submitting the appeals (4629 o and 4630 o) of The John Shillito Company from your assessment of duty on certain ecru-cotton cloths and weardale carpets imported by them, entries 343, March 3, and 329, March 2, 1886.

The claim of the appellants that the weardale carpets are crumb cloths intended to be placed over carpets for their protection, and are not " carpets woven whole for rooms," is also substantiated, and it is ascertained that they are properly dutiable at the rate of 8 cents per square yard and 30 per cent ad valorem, as two-ply ingrain carpets, under the provisions therefor in paragraph 375, act of March 3, 1883, as claimed by the importers.

You are hereby authorized to readjust the entries and to forward a certified statement for refund of the excess of duty. *

(7474.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 29, 1886. CAMEL'S-HAIR TOPS-The Department duly received your letter of the 9th instant, reporting in the matter of the appeal (4517o) of Cass & Mote from your assessment of duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem on certain so-called camel's-hair tops imported per Adriatic, December 21, 1885, and returned by the appraiser at your port as nonenumerated articles partially manufactured, dutiable under section 2513, act of March 3, 1883.

It appears that the merchandise in question consists of camel's-hair tops that have passed through an extensive process of cleaning but are not otherwise manufactured. Reports as to the dutiable character of these tops have been received from the collectors and appraisers at Boston and Philadelphia, and the Department concurs with them in the opinion that such merchandise can not be considered as manufactures within the meaning of the section above cited, but are more properly covered by the provisions of T. I., new, 717 of the free list, for "hair of all kinds, cleaned or uncleaned, drawn or undrawn, but unmanufactured, not specially enumerated or provided for," and should therefore be admitted free of duty.

The camel's-hair tops in question are inferior to camel's-hair noils, which, by Department's decision of September 20, 1875 (Synopsis, 2447), were held to be included in the provision in the old tariff for "hair of all kinds, cleaned but unmanufactured, not otherwise provided for;" nor are the tops in question any further advanced in manufacture than wool tops, which, by Department's decision of February 17, 1881 (Synopsis 4777), were decided not to be manufactured.

You are therefore authorized to reliquidate the entry free of duty, in accordance with the views herein expressed, and to take the necessary steps for refunding the duty exacted. (7488.)