.

provision if the other did not exist. Both provisions are in force, however, and that provision must be preferred which is the more limited in scope and consequently the more specific. As the provision for surface-coated papers used for photographic purposes embraces nothing more than surface-coated papers devoted to one use, we must hold that it is clearly narrower and more specific than a provision for surface-coated papers the use of which is not designated or limited. Even if both provisions were equally applicable to the goods, paragraph 1460 requires that duties must be assessed under the provision carrying the higher rate. The X-ray screens were dutiable as assessed and the judgment of the board is therefore affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. FARWELL Co. (No. 2450) 1

CONSTRUCTION OF BOARD'S RULES

"VERIFIED."

1

The Board of United States General Appraisers is primarily the judge of its own rules, and, if they are open to construction, the board's interpretation of them will not be interfered with by this court unless this court is satisfied that, as interpreted, they are unreasonable or not warranted by law. Section 489, Tariff Act of 1922, prescribes that a petition for the remission of additional duties shall be filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe. The board's rules require the petition to be in writing and verified by the petitioner or some one knowing the facts. The overruling by the board of a motion to dismiss for insufficient verification, such petition bearing a notarial attestation "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of November, 1923," is affirmed.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 4, 1925

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 47439 [Affirmed.]

William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Ralph Folks, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

No appearance for appellee.

[Oral argument Jan. 25, 1925, by Mr. Folks]

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and SMITH, Barber, BLAND, and HATField, Associate Judges

SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Human hair nets purchased at Tsinanfu, China, for $2.45, plus packing, were entered at the customhouse in Chicago at that value. The appraiser advanced the value to $2.85, Mexican money, plus packing. As the importer had no information as to the market value of the goods in China and was unable because of the Japanese disaster at Yokohama to communicate with its representative in the Orient, who was stationed at Yokohama, no appeal to reappraisement was taken.

1 T. D. 40883.

A petition was filed, however, with the board praying for a finding that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than its appraised value was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.

That petition is as follows:

JOHN V. FARWELL CO.,

102 SOUTH MARKET STREET,

Chicago, November 1, 1923.

THE BOARD OF UNITED STATES GENERAL APPRAISERS,

641 Washington Street, New York, N. Y.

GENTLEMEN: Application is hereby made for remission of additional duty assessed by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago on the merchandise covered by entry No. 3602, under section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1922.

The merchandise in question is human hair nets, purchased at Tsinanfu, China, from Yuang Kee, by our agent in the Orient.

Instruction was given to our agent while he was in Chicago in March, 1923, to purchase hair nets for our account and the price was not to exceed yuan $2.60 per gross. The merchandise was shipped in part on or about July 28, 1923, invoiced at the price actually paid, viz, yuan $2.45, plus packing. At the time of making entry, and indeed at no time, was there any fact or figure in our possession that would lead us to believe that the market value was any different from the price actually paid and as was shown on the invoice submitted with our entry. No appeal from the action of the appraiser was taken, as we were without any information as to the market value in China other than furnished by our invoice, as our representative in the Orient had his office in Yokohama, Japan, and it was impossible to communicate with him with regard to this matter, and it was problematical when he could be reached and whether his records would have been saved after the Japanese disaster which occurred about this time.

There was no fact of any nature that was concealed from the appraiser, nor any act done that could have tended to deceive him.

Wherefore, we respectfully request the remission and refund of the additional duties collected in this matter.

Respectfully,

W. LEE HUCKINS,

Manager of Foreign Department,

The John V. Farwell Co.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of November, 1923. [SEAL]

WILLIAM E. MANN, Notary Public. :

My commission expires August 31, 1927. The petition came on for hearing before General Appraiser Howell at Chicago on January 15, 1924, and thereupon the Government moved to dismiss it on the ground that it was not verified as prescribed by the rules of the board and the provision of the statute. The general appraiser declined to pass on the motion and reserved it for decision by the board. Board 2 of the Board of General Appraisers denied the motion to dismiss, considered the petition on its merits, and found that the importation was entered at a value less than its appraised value without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the mer

chandise. From that decision the Government appealed and now contends that it was reversible error to entertain the petition and that the petition should have been dismissed because it was not verified as prescribed by the rules of the board. We can not agree

with that contention.

Section 489 of the act of 1922 simply prescribes that the petition for the finding therein provided for shall be filed and supported by satisfactory evidence under such rules as the board may prescribe. The rules of the board require the petition to be in writing and verified by the petitioner or some one knowing the facts. The rules specify no particular form of verification, and as the Government is not obliged to answer the petition it is not apparent just why the term "verified" as used in the rules should be given the narrow construction contended for by the appellant.

Tariff laws and rules for their enforcement are primarily addressed to business men and not to lawyers, and unless some other intention is clearly manifest the terms in which such laws are drafted should be given their common ordinary meaning. As commonly understood, the term "to verify," when applied to legal proceedings, means to affirm under oath. See "Verify"-New Standard Dictionary. Even standard law dictionaries and law works give to the word "verify" a meaning in complete accord with that assigned to it by people in general. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, verify" means the swearing to an affidavit, to confirm and substantiate by oath, or even by argument. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (vol. 3, p. 3394); De Witt v. Swift, 3 Howard's Practice Reports (N. Y.), 284. But however that may be, the Board of General Appraisers is primarily the judge of its own rules, and if they are open to construction the board's interpretation of them will not be interfered with by this court unless we are satisfied that they are unreasonable or not warranted by the statute. Ellmaker v. Franklin, 5 Pa. St. 183, 189; Daily v. Green, 15 Pa. St. 118; In the matter of Argus Co., 138 N. Y. Rep. 557, 567; Duncan v. United States, 7 Pet. 435, 451.

The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

1

ROSENBLOOM & Co. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES (No. 2477) 1 1. SECTION 309, REVENUE ACT OF 1917-" LIQUEURS "-"CORDIALS"-BITTERS. Section 309, revenue act of 1917, levies additional duty on "liqueurs," "cordials," and other alcoholic beverages named, but does not cover bitters. Liqueur is a generic term which comprises all sweetened or aromatic spirituous beverages, and, therefore, includes cordials, which are a particular kind of liqueur, but it does not include bitters. Bitters are not even similar to the alcoholic beverages named. Bitters is an infusion of bitter ingredients, espe cially one made with spirits.

1T. D. 40884

2. CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 309, REVENUE ACT OF 1917-BATJER & Co. v. UNITED STATES, 11 CT. CUST. APPLS. 60, T. D. 38726, EXPLAINED.

Batjer & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 60, T. D. 38726, was to the effect that section 309, revenue act of 1917, provided for all alcholic liqueurs, not all alcoholic liquors.

"BITTERS"-"COMPOUNDS

* * *

OF

* * *

3. RELATIVE SPECIFICITY-PARAGRAPHS 240 AND 239, TARIFF ACT OF 1913DISTILLED SPIRITS." The provision of paragraph 240, tariff act of 1913, for "bitters" is less comprehensive and far more specific than that of paragraph 239 for "Compounds or preparations of which distilled spirits are a component part of chief value." 4. CONSTRUCTION, PARAGRAPH 239, TARIFF ACT OF 1913-BITTERS-DISTILLED SPIRITS.

Paragraph 239, tariff act of 1913, prescribing that compounds or preparations of which distilled spirits are a component part of chief value shall pay duty not less than that paid by distilled spirits, can not subject bitters, dutiable eo nomine under paragraph 240, to the additional duty provided for by paragraph 300, revenue act of 1917, on distilled spirits.

5. FERNET BRANCA BITTERS.

Fernet Branca bitters-distilled spirits to which bitters have been added— was dutiable under paragraph 240, tariff act of 1913, as bitters containing spirits. No additional duty was provided for it by the revenue act of 1917, or by section 300 or 309 thereof.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 4, 1925

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 47874 [Reversed.]

Allan R. Brown for appellants.

William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Marcus Higginbotham, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

[Oral argument Mar. 24, 1925, by Mr. Brown and Mr. Hoppin]

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and SMIth, Barber, BLAND, and HATFIELD, Associate Judges

SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Fernet Branca bitters, imported at the port of New York on May 21, 1917, were entered in bond at the port of New York and assessed for duty at the rate of $2.60 per gallon under the provisions of paragraph 240 of the tariff act of 1913, which reads as follows:

240. Cordials, liqueurs, arrack, absinthe, kirschwasser, ratafia, and other spirituous beverages or bitters of all kinds, containing spirits, and not specially provided for in this section, $2.60 per proof gallon. (Italics not quoted.)

The Fernet Branca bitters were in bonded warehouse, duty unpaid, when the revenue act of October 3, 1917, went into effect. The collector therefore reliquidated the entry and assessed the goods not only with the duty of $2.60 per proof gallon imposed by the paragraph above quoted but also with the additional duty of $2.10

prescribed by that part of section 300 of the act of 1917, which reads as follows:

300. That on and after the passage of this act there shall be levied and collected on all distilled spirits in bond at that time or that have been or that may be then or thereafter produced in or imported into the United States, except such distilled spirits as are subject to the tax provided in section 303, in addition to the tax now imposed by law, a tax of $1.10 (or, if withdrawn for beverage purposes or for use in the manufacture or production of any article used or intended for use as a beverage, a tax of $2.10) on each proof gallon, or wine gallon when below proof, and a proportionate tax at a like rate on all fractional parts of such proof or wine gallon, to be paid by the distiller or importer when withdrawn, and collected under the provisions of existing law,

The importers protested that the merchandise was not distilled spirits for beverage purposes or for use in the manufacture of or production of any article used or intended for use as a beverage and that therefore it was not subject to the additional duty of $2.10 per proof gallon assessed thereon by the collector.

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed.

On the hearing before the board no evidence was offered by the appellants and the case was submitted for decision upon the following stipulation as to the facts:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed between counsel that the merchandise in question consists of Fernet Branca bitters; that it is a spirituous beverage; that it contains spirits; that distilled spirits are the component part of chief value.

As Fernet Branca bitters is a compound or preparation of which distilled spirits is the component of chief value and as paragraph 239 of the act of 1913 levies a duty on such compounds or preparations not less than that prescribed for distilled spirits, the Government contends that the importation is subject to the additional duty imposed upon distilled spirits by section 300 of the act of 1917. Paragraph 239 of the act of 1913, reads as follows:

239. On all compounds or preparations of which distilled spirits are a component part of chief value there shall be levied a duty not less than that imposed upon distilled spirits.

The contention of the Government would be sound and we would have to sustain it were it not for the fact that the tariff act under which additional duties were assessed provides for "bitters" eo nomine, a designation much less comprehensive and far more specific than the designation "compounds or preparations of which distilled spirits are a component part of chief value."

The act of October 3, 1917, was amendatory of the act of October 3, 1913, and levied no additional duty whatever on bitters. An additional duty was levied on liqueurs and cordials and other eo nomine 70734-267-VOL 13-5