The pertinent portion of the said sugar act reads as follows: (a) In addition to any other tax or duty imposed by law, there shall be imposed, under such regulations as the Commissioner of Customs shall prescribe, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax upon articles imported or brought into the United States as follows: (3) On all articles composed in chief value of manufactured sugar 0.5144 cent per pound of the total sugars therein. The only issue before the trial court was whether or not the sugar content of the marmalade was the component material of chief value and assessable for additional duty under the sugar act as aforesaid. The case was tried in the city of New York and the record for appellant consists of a deposition taken in England pursuant to a commission, and a report of a Treasury attaché. The questions answered in the deposition are 20 in number. There were no crossinterrogatories. The record discloses that the involved merchandise was manufactured entirely of Seville oranges and sugar and exported by Chivers and Sons, Ltd., Histon, Cambridge, England The sugar in the marmalade had been imported into England and assessed with duty. Upon exportation of the marmalade the exporter received as drawback or refund from the British Government 93 per centum of the amount of the import duty it had paid on the sugar in the marmalade. It appears that the cost of the sugar to the manufacturer, including the duty paid thereon, is higher than the cost of the oranges, but that the cost of the sugar minus the duty is less than the cost of the oranges. The trial court held the question of component material of chief value to be properly determined by the costs of the oranges and the sugar at the time those components were ready to be assembled or combined into the completed article, marmalade, citing the case of United States v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co., 19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 232, T. D. 45337. Appellant does not question the rule of law, that the determination of the component material of chief value results from the relative costs of the component materials to the manufacturer at that stage of manufacture where nothing further remains to be done but to combine them, as announced by the Supreme Court in the case of Seeberger v. Hardy, 150 U. S. 420, and by this court in the Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. case, supra; United States v. Mrs. S. Bacharach, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 353, T. D. 44612; and Turner & Co. et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 48, T. D. 39997. Appellant's contention is that the actual cost of the sugar component to the manufacturer at the time the oranges and sugar were combined is the cost of the sugar minus the 93 per centum refund of the duty. Therefore, the question to be decided here is whether or not the actual cost to the manufacturer is that cost prior to the payment of said refund or drawback. The rule laid down in the decisions of this court is succinctly stated in the Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. case, supra: This court has repeatedly held that the proper method of determining component material of chief value is to ascertain the costs of the separate parts or component materials to the manufacturer at the time they are ready to be assembled or combined into the completed article. [Citing cases.] [Italics supplied.] At the time the sugar and oranges were combined to form the resultant product, the sugar was the component material of chief value. Any drawback or refund of duty which the manufacturer received upon exportation of the marmalade, therefore, cannot be considered in computing the component material of chief value. The said refund, having become effective after the marmalade was manufactured, under the rule must be held not to affect the relative costs of the sugar and oranges in the product. It seems to us under the facts in this case that exportation of "Olde English Marmalade" was being encouraged by the British Government by making it profitable to the manufacturer and exporter to export the marmalade by paying to the importer a rebate or drawback upon the exported goods measured by 93 per centum of the duty levied on the sugar used in its manufacture. In view of what has hereinbefore been said, we cannot sustain the appellant's contention that the actual cost of the sugar entering into the manufacture of "Olde English Marmalade" is the cost of the sugar minus the duty refunded upon exportation. The cases of United States v. Passavant, 169 U. S. 16, Downs v. United States, 187 U. S. 496, and Nicholas & Co. et al. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 97, T. D. 36426, affirmed 249 U. S. 34, were discussed by the Government in its brief, principally for the purpose of showing that the terms "bounty," "grant," "drawback," etc., have been held to possess some significance. Those cases, however, are not at all in point here since they merely involve the question of market value. The judgment of the United States Customs Court is affirmed. UNITED STATES v. OTIS MCALLISTER & Co. (No. 4427)1 1. WIRE NETTING GALVANIZED AFTER WEAVING. Hexagonal wire netting (galvanized after weaving), made on a loom with warp, so-called weft wires, and bobbins, by a process in which, as the finished article appears, all the wires run in the same general longitudinal direction, thereby making it difficult to determine by visual examination which are warp wires and which are so-called weft wires. While the netting is not woven as cloth is woven, for the reason that there is no weft or filler which traverses the warp wires from selvedge to selvedge, it does appear that in the fabrication of the article every second wire (so-called weft) is twisted alternately around the 1 C. A. D. 242. warp wires on either side of it, resulting in the hexagonal form of the mesh. Held that the merchandise properly responds to the term "woven-wire netting" (as that term is commonly known) contained in paragraph 397, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by presidential proclamation, T. D. 44605, although it cannot properly be said to consist of warp and weft or filling wires as commonly understood. Wilbur Ellis Co. v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 426, and Cron & Dehn Hardware Corp., et al. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 445 T. D. 44699, not applicable. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, May 18, [Reversed.] APPEAL from United States Customs Court, C. D. 699 1943 Paul P. Rao, Assistant Attorney General (Richard F. Weeks, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States. Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle of counsel) for appellee. Lamb & Lerch, Amici Curiae. [Oral argument April 6, 1943, by Mr. Weeks, Mr. Tuttle and Mr. John G. Lerch] Before GARRETT, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, LENROOT, and JACKSON Associate Judges JACKSON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Appellee entered on April 14, 1937, an importation designated in the invoice as "stucco netting galvanized after weaving" from Hamburg, Germany. The Collector of Customs of the port of San Francisco assessed duty on the imported merchandise at 60 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by a presidential proclamation, T. D. 44605, 59 Treas. Dec. 288. Paragraph 397 as far as pertinent here reads as follows: PAR. 397. Articles or wares not specially provided for, *** ; if composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other metal, but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, whether partly or wholly manufactured, 45 per centum ad valorem. and the proclamation as far as pertinent reads as follows: And an increase in the rate of duty expressly fixed in paragraph 397 of Title I of said act on woven-wire fencing and woven-wire netting, all the foregoing composed of wire smaller than eight one-hundredths and not smaller than three onehundredths of an inch in diameter, coated with zinc or other metal after weaving, from 45 per centum ad valorem to 60 per centum ad valorem. The involved merchandise has the appearance of ordinary chicken wire or poultry netting, and was galvanized after it was formed. It was conceded by appellee to be wire netting, and the issue below was whether or not the merchandise was woven-wire netting within the meaning of the paragraph 397 amended as aforesaid. The case was tried in the cities of Seattle, Wash., and San Francisco, Calif. The appellee presented the testimony of three witnesses. The testimony of one of the witnesses pertained to a kind of wire netting identified as "lock twist" which is a different kind of netting than the involved merchandise. On motion the testimony of this witness was stricken, but was later restored for the purpose of illustrating a type of netting which in some of the testimony was said to be not woven. Another of appellee's witnesses was a clerk in the office of the appraiser of merchandise at the port of San Francisco and he merely identified a sample of domestic wire netting as being representative of the imported merchandise. That sample was received in evidence as Exhibit 1. The third witness was associated with appellee and testified that the imported merchandise "must have been made by the same process" as Exhibit 1 and that he had observed the process by which such merchandise was made in the plant of the California Wire Cloth Corporation in Oakland, Calif. The witness described the process in the following language: The process consists of the assembly of a number of parallel wires in a machine, and every alternate wire being in the form of a long coil in a tube, and as the wires progress through the machine these alternating coils in the tubes revolve around stationary wire that is going alongside of it, thus forming the loops on the stationary wires and the interlacing. The witness testified the process to be the "interweaving of these parallel wires as they run through the machine." He was unable to say that the wires present in the exhibit were known by any names except as to the wire along one edge of the exhibit, which he thought was called the selvedge. The foregoing constituted appellee's entire case. The Government called five witnesses, all of whom were associated with various domestic steel fabricating companies. The testimonial record on behalf of appellant may be briefly summarized as follows: That the imported merchandise comprising steel wires, woven into articles of hexagonal pattern and galvanized after weaving, was made on a loom by a process wherein every alternate wire was twisted around the adjoining wires. The Government introduced exhibits consisting of a trade catalog, price lists, bills of sale, photographs of the machine used by the California Wire Cloth Corporation to make netting similar to the imported merchandise, and a Federal Standard Stock Catalog giving the Federal specifications for "FENCING; WIRE (BARBED, NETTING AND WOVEN), BLACK AND GALVANIZED." In the latter catalog under the heading of "Workmanship" we find that "On all Type C hexagon wire netting the zinc coating shall be done after weaving." The trade catalog illustrates hexagonal netting similar in appearance to the involved merchandise and described as "STEEL WIRE NETTING-GALVANIZED BEFORE OR AFTER WEAVING." The photographs show a rather complicated machine in which there are spools upon which wires are wound. Those wires, designated as warp wires, are unwound from the spools and enter the machine at its base, running to nearly the top thereof between tubes filled in spiral formation with what appellant's witnesses termed weft or filling wires. It was testified in the following language that in making wire netting on said machine, the weft wires are caused to interlace with the alternate warp wires: Approximately 50 percent of the wires are fed in either from spools or from a coil of wire, the coil being in a bundle. These wires are fed underneath the roller at the base of the machine and are stationary. They cannot be twisted without becoming untwisted, inasmuch as they are fastened both at the top and bottom. They are fastened by going through at the bottom and going into the cloth at the top. Approximately 50 percent of the wires are formed on a bobbin coiling machine. Long coils are inserted in the top. They are loose, and can be moved. Those are the filling wires, and they can be moved back and forth between what we call the warp wires, and as they are moved from one wire to the other they twist as they cross each wire. That makes a twist motion. After that twist has been made it is pulled up over a peg roller and wound into the package and taken off the machine. Several Government exhibits consist of specifications for hexagonal wire netting made on said machine using the letters W, F, and S as abbreviations for warp, filler, and selvedge wires. It was also shown that hexagonal netting similar to that here involved was sold by the California Wire Cloth Corporation bearing a tag on which the expression "galvanized after weaving" appears. Upon that record the United States Customs Court, Second Division, sustained the claim made in the protest and gave judgment for appellee citing as authority its own decision in Wilbur Ellis Co. v. United States, 6 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 426, and the decision of this court in the case of Cron & Dehn Hardware Corp. et al. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 445, T. D. 44699. From the judgment this appeal was taken. The brief of appellee in support of its contention that the involved merchandise is not within the common meaning of the term "wovenwire netting" relies upon the decision of the trial court and the decisions therein cited. Much of the briefs of both parties is devoted to a discussion of the record in the Cron & Dehn case, supra. The record in that case is not Neither will we consider Smith & Co. v. United States, in evidence here and will not be considered. In its decision in the instant case the trial court, in citing the Wilbur Ellis Co. case, supra, stated that precisely similar merchandise with that involved here was not woven-wire netting and therefore not subject to the said presidential proclamation. That case, however, |