trary was introduced on the hearing. The board finds and counsel for the importers admit that the goods are flexible copper tubing or hose. On this state of the record there is but one point presented for decision, Is flexible copper tubing or hose provided for in any paragraph or section of the tariff act other than paragraph 151? Counsel for the importers contend that flexible copper tubing or hose is specially provided for in paragraph 176. We think this contention can not be sustained, even if it be assumed that a proper basis for it was laid in the protest. Paragraph 176 fixes a duty of 2 cents per pound on copper pipes, not on copper tubing, and much less on flexible copper tubing or hose. While the words "pipe" and "tube" are frequently used interchangeably, there is, after all, a distinction between them. Generally speaking, pipe implies an article of tubular form which is rigid and tubing an article which is flexible. (Standard Dictionary.) However, section 151, in precise language, provides for flexible metal tubing or hose, and we must consider this a more specific and definite enumeration of the article imported than one for "copper pipes."

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

SIMPSON V. UNITED STATES (No. 530). VANDEGRIFT v. UNITED STATES (No. 531).1

COTTON WASTE, NOT ADVANCED IN VALUE.

Cotton waste recovered from mill sweepings or used cotton waste is not "advanced in value" by processes of combing, washing, and bleaching in the sense implied by "advanced in value" appearing in section 313, tariff act of 1909. It is entitled to free entry under that act.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, October 12, 1911.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7111 (T. D. 31001). [Reversed.]

Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn and J. Stuart Tompkins of counsel) for appellants.

D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin on the brief), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Certain cotton waste imported at Philadelphia was classified by the collector of customs as cotton waste advanced in value and assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 313 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, the part of which material to the case is as follows:

Cotton waste and flocks manufactured or otherwise advanced in value,

twenty per centum ad valorem.

1 Reported in T. D. 31952 (21 Treas. Dec., 397).

The importers protested that the merchandise was not cotton waste advanced in value, but that it was cotton waste entitled to free entry under paragraph 548 of the free list, which paragraph is as follows:

548. Cotton, and cotton waste or flocks.

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest as to 10 bales of the importation described as "pulled waste" and overruled it as to that part denominated "washed or bleached waste." From the decision, in so far as it overruled the protest, the importers appealed. No appeal was taken by the Government from that part of the decision sustaining the protest as to 10 bales of pulled waste.

The facts in the case are practically undisputed and are about as follows: The goods in question are the product either of cotton. waste which has been used for cleaning machinery or of the mill sweepings of cotton mills or of a mixture of both. The cotton waste which has been used to clean machinery is of course impregnated with oil and dirt and thereby has lost its usefulness to the consumer as a cotton waste. The mill sweepings are made up of soiled cotton waste and of dirt, bits of leather, and other refuse swept up from the floors of the mills. Neither mill sweepings nor used cotton waste. would be accepted as a good delivery of the lowest grade of cotton. waste. The payment of freight on a high percentage of unserviceable material and the inflammable nature of oil-soaked cotton practically precludes the importation into this country of used cotton waste or of mill sweepings. The mill sweepings and used cotton waste are in fact a spoiled cotton waste and have no value in their foul condition either to the consumer or the manufacturer of cotton waste. Mill sweepings and used cotton waste are not thrown away, however, as worthless refuse, but are sold to those who make a business of bringing such materials to some degree of usefulness as cotton. waste by separating the cotton fiber therein from its impurities. This is accomplished by putting the material through a machine which combs out the dirt and all other foreign matter, with the exception of the oil and grease absorbed by the fiber. The oil and grease, if any there be, are then eliminated by washing the cotton with water and acids. Although this washing bleaches the material to some extent, it is fairly evident that the primary purpose of the washing is not to bleach but to cleanse, and that whatever of bleaching results from the use of acid to remove grease and oil is more than counterbalanced by injury done to the fiber. If the product is cleaned solely by combing out the dirt it is "pulled waste." If it is cleaned by washing it is called "washed waste." From mill sweepings about 50 per cent of available material can be recovered; that is to say, 10,000 pounds of mill sweepings will produce about 5,000 pounds of pulled waste which, if it contains oil or grease, must be

further treated by washing with water and acid before it reaches the stage of a very low grade of cotton waste.

The cotton waste which is recovered by these processes is not and could not be sold to the consumer as a cotton waste, but is mixed by the manufacturer with 75 per cent of No. 1 white waste. The cost of No. 1 white waste to the manufacturer is from 6 to 9 cents per pound, and as he receives for the finished product not more than from 8 to 9 cents per pound, the adulterant may be said to represent his margin of profit. Used cotton waste and mill sweepings are bought and sold in Europe at prices which run from five-eighths of 1 cent per pound to 14 cents per pound. The average price of "pulled waste" and "washed waste" in the same market averages about 3 cents per pound.

As popularly understood, cotton waste is that refuse of cotton manufacture which is used to clean machinery and as packing for axle boxes (Standard Dictionary; Century Dictionary), and so far as the evidence discloses that same understanding of the term attaches to it in the trade. Manifestly, and as appears from the record, mill sweepings and used cotton waste are not fit to clean machinery or pack axle boxes. With these as the facts in the case we do not see how it is possible to escape the following conclusions:

First. That mill sweepings and used cotton waste are not cotton waste within the trade or popular understanding of that term, and that the cotton fiber which is a constituent part of such sweepings and used cotton waste ceased to be cotton waste when it became so contaminated with dirt, grease, oil, and other foreign matter that it was no longer serviceable or marketable as cotton waste.

Second, that mill sweepings and used cotton waste are nothing more than the crude materials from which a cotton waste may be reclaimed or recovered.

Third, that the cotton waste so reclaimed or recovered is at best one of the lowest grades of cotton waste and is of such an inferior quality that it is not salable to the consumer, but is serviceable only to the manufacturer of cotton waste, who mixes it with No. 1 cotton waste and utilizes it as an adulterant to reduce the cost of making merchantable cotton waste.

Fourth, that while mill sweepings and used cotton waste have been advanced in condition by converting them into a cotton waste of low grade, the cotton waste so evolved has not itself been advanced .in condition or subjected to further treatment or processing to advance its value.

It appearing to our satisfaction that the cotton waste under discussion is a reclaimed or recovered cotton waste of low grade; that it has not been restored to its natural state, much less advanced

beyond that condition; that it was not manufactured or advanced in value after its restoration to the status of a cotton waste; and that it is inferior to the normal cotton waste, which, although worth nearly twice as much, is admitted free of duty, we must decide that the importation is entitled to free entry. To hold otherwise would mean that a cotton waste just as it falls from the mill must be admitted free and that an inferior cotton waste recovered from the same material after it has become refuse by use or otherwise can not be so admitted, which would be an anomaly the introduction of which into the tariff law of 1909 we can not assume was the real intention of Congress.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

UNITED STATES v. MEYERSON (No. 547).1

CARDBOARD EMBOSSED TO IMITATE LEATHER.

Plain cardboard that has been embossed to give it an appearance of grain leather by passing it between a smooth and an indented roller remains cardboard; and it is not dutiable as paper, but as cardboard, under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, October 12, 1911. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7078 (T. D. 30826). [Affirmed.]

D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Thomas J. Doherty on the brief), for the United States.

Harvey T. Andrews for appellee.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, Barber, De Vries, and MARTIN, Judges.

SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Certain merchandise imported into the country at the port of New York was classified as uncoated paper with a surface design not produced by lithographic processes, and assessed for duty by the collector at 4 cents per pound under the following provisions of paragraph 411 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909:

*

*

411. * * Papers, including wrapping paper, with the surface decorated or covered with a design, fancy effect, pattern or character, whether produced in the pulp or otherwise, but not by lithographic process, four and one-half cents per pound; * *. Other merchandise of the very same kind, except that it lacked the surface design, was subjected to duty as cardboard at 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 415.

To the classification and duty assessed the importer objected in due time and as reasons for his objection thereto set up in his protest that

1 Reported in T. D. 31953 (21 Treas. Dec., 400).

32354-VOL 2-12-15

all of the merchandise was properly dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 415 of said act, the part of which paragraph material to this case is as follows:

415. Jacquard designs on ruled paper, or cut on Jacquard cards, and parts of such designs, cardboard and bristol board, thirty-five per centum ad valorem;

*

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed.

The goods were reported by the appraiser as follows:

(A) Plain paper boards intended to be used in the manufacture of suit cases, dutiable as cardboard at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 415.

(B) Paper boards the same as A, except that they have an embossed design in imitation of the grain in leather, dutiable as paper with a surface design at 4 cents per pound under paragraph 411.

From the uncontradicted evidence produced on the hearing the following facts appear to be established:

The goods are manufactured from paper pulp and belong to that class of manufactures from pulp known as cardboard. Cardboard is distinguished from paper as commonly understood in this, that it is thicker and heavier, stiffer and less flexible. Cardboard is not made on the usual paper machine, but on a special machine which winds. up on a cylinder sufficient pulp or several layers of pulp to constitute the thickness required. It is not dried on the cylinders as is paper. Neither is it calendered in the same way. The board is taken from the cylinder wet and is dried in the air, which gives it a stiffness not possessed by paper. Moreover, as it can not be wound on the cylinder without splitting, it is calendered in sheets and not on the roll, as is paper. To make plain board the pulp is run through smooth rollers. Embossed board is produced by passing the pulp between a smooth roller and an indented roller. The testimony further discloses that cardboard is the generic name for paper boards and that in trade and commerce that term embraces the various boards, which, on account of their color and appearance and the pulp material of which they are made, have received such special names as wood board, strawboard, chip board, plain board, red fiber board, embossed-leather board, and so forth. As already stated, the plain board in this case was classified by the collector as cardboard, while the embossed board, composed of the same material, manufactured in the same way, intended for the same general uses, and differing in no way from the plain board, except that it had been given the appearance of grain leather with an indented roller, was classified as paper. Such a difference in classification may have been moved by considerations of the higher duty, but that classification can scarcely be said to be distinguished by its consistency.