schedule need not be determined here; but a special kind of hollow ware-cast hollow ware-is provided for in paragraph 327. Obviously, then, there was necessity for the insertion of the words "not specially provided for" in paragraph 339. Such of the articles as come within the definitions and pronouncements hereinbefore stated are either table or household hollow ware and utensils; they are composed in chief value of base metal; they are, therefore, precisely described in paragraph 339. The provision in paragraph 399 for "articles and wares plated * * with silver," covers all articles and wares of every kind and description, whether partly or wholly manufactured, and is limited only to such articles as are metals or manufactures thereof. We think that the provision in paragraph 339 for hollow ware in chief value of base metal is a more specific designation for such ware, plated with silver, than the provision in paragraph 399 for articles and wares plated with silver. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large percentage of both hollow ware and flat ware for household and table use are silver plated. Congress was aware of these facts. Furthermore, at the very time that paragraph 339 was being considered by the Congress, paragraphs 345, 348, 350, 352, and 360 in the metal schedule were being considered, and in each of these paragraphs the Congress was very careful to provide for articles, when plated with gold, silver, or platinum, at a higher rate of duty, or, by appropriate and plain language, to exclude them entirely from its provisions. * Paragraph 345 provides for "Saddlery and harness hardware: Buckles, rings, snaps, bits, swivels, and all other articles of iron, steel, brass, composition, or other metal, not plated with gold or silver, * 35 per centum ad valorem; all articles of iron, steel, brass, composition, or other metal, not plated with gold or silver, commonly or commercially known as saddlery or riding bridle hardware, 50 per centum ad valorem; all the foregoing, if plated with gold or silver, 60 per centum ad valorem.' (Italics ours.) * * * * * In paragraph 348 the Congress provided for "Snap fasteners and clasps, * not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, 55 per centum ad valorem." (Italics ours.) * * * In paragraph 350 the Congress provided for "Pins with solid heads, without ornamentation, including hair, safety, hat, bonnet, and shawl pins; and brass, copper, iron, steel, or other base metal pins, *; all the foregoing not plated with gold or silver, 35 per centum ad valorem." (Italics ours.) In paragraph 352 we find a provision for "* mechanical pencils made of base metal and not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, * * * "" * * Paragraph 360 provides for "Philosophical, scientific, and laboratory instruments, apparatus, utensils, appliances (including drawing, surveying, and mathematical instruments), and parts thereof, composed wholly or in chief value of metal, and not plated with gold, silver, or platinum, finished or unfinished, not specially provided for, 40 per centum ad valorem." (Italics ours.) Is it not a fair presumption that, if the Congress had intended to exclude silver-plated hollow ware from the provisions of paragraph 339, knowing as it did that the term "hollow ware" was a generic term and that many table and household hollow wares and utensils of metal were plated with silver, it would have used appropriate language in the paragraph for that purpose? It would seem strange indeed that Congress should be sufficiently careful to expressly provide in paragraph 345 for "Saddlery and harness hardware, * * *"" when "plated with gold or silver"; to exclude "Snap fasteners and clasps" from paragraph 348 when "plated with gold, silver, or platinum"; to exclude "Pins" of "brass * * * or other base metal" from paragraph 350, when "plated with gold or silver"; to exclude "mechanical pencils made of base metal' from paragraph 352, when "plated with gold, silver, or platinum”; and to exclude "Philosophical, scientific, and laboratory instruments, apparatus, utensils, appliances," from paragraph 360, when "plated with gold, silver, or platinum," and fail to expressly exclude from paragraph 339, common and ordinary household and table hollow and flat ware and other utensils, when plated with silver, if such was its intention. We think that such was not the intention. ours.) (Italics Without intending to give expression to any opinion with regard to the omission of the word "similar" in paragraph 339, it may be said that the addition of the word "household" must have been intended to extend the operation of the paragraph. Surely, there is no more reason for limiting the scope of the paragraph to such hollow and flat wares as are similar to unplated kitchen utensils than there is to limit the provision for household, hospital, and table utensils to such as are of the character of kitchen utensils. Having expressly excepted silver-plated articles from the operation of the provisions of paragraphs 345, 348, 350, 352, and 360, it must be presumed that the Congress realized that, without words of exclusion, such articles would be covered by the provisions of these paragraphs. Accordingly, it would seem to be clear that, having failed to expressly exclude silver-plated hollow ware and utensils from paragraph 339, the Congress intended that such articles should be included therein. For the reasons stated the judgment is modified, being reversed in so far as it holds candlesticks, chamber candlesticks, candelabras, storm candlesticks, photo frames, and vases dutiable under paragraph 339, and in all other respects, affirmed. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS' DISMISSED APRIL 10, 1928 United States v. Wilkinson Bros. & Co., Inc. (No. 2818).-Remission-Validity of rule 36-Timeliness. Appeal from Abstract 144. United States v. Treulich & Klaas (No. 3016).—Beads, amber-Semiprecious stones. Appeal from Abstract 3375. APRIL 13, 1928 William Prym of America (Inc.) v. United States (No. 3067).—Brass pins, etc. Appeal from circular reappraisement 906. MAY 7, 1928 United States v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Dry Goods Co. (No. 3020).-Imitation pearl bead necklaces Jewelry. Appeal from Abstract 3438. Noury & Van Der Lande v. United States (No. 2843).—Remission—Evidence— Timeless of petition. Appeal from Abstract 51947. MAY 31, 1928 Mario Mercado & Hijos v. United States (No. 2953).—Remission—Timeless of petition. Appeal from Abstract 1780. Wilson & Cook, Inc. v. United States (No. 3096).—Remission of additional duties. Appeal from Abstract 5291. JUNE 21, 1928 United States v. W. B. Wason, Inc. (No. 3040).—Agricultural Implements→ Trowels-Forks-Garden sets. Appeal from Abstract 3827. OCTOBER 9, 1928 United States v. Him Sing Chong & Co. (No. 3033).-Remission-Rule 35, validity of—Timeliness. Appeal from Abstract 3785. f OCTOBER 12, 1928 Thomas J. Wilbee v. United States (No. 3112).—Legality appraisement gardenal powder. Appeal from circular reappraisement 1065. United States v. Wm. Hengerer Co. (No. 3121).-Sewing machines Toys. Appeal from Abstract 5922. 1 T. D. 43335. 26348-29-VOL 16- -37 577 DECEMBER 7, 1928 University of Illinois v. United States (No. 3158).—Constitutional exemptions. Appeal from T. D. 43023. JANUARY 9, 1929 F. B. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 3160).—Fish-spine beads. Appeal from T. D. 42976. JANUARY 29, 1929 Bernard, Judae & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 3154).—Merchandise not legally marked-Watches and parts. Appeal from T. D. 42991. FEBRUARY 27, 1929 Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. v. United States (No. 3161).Damaged wheat. Appeal from Abstract 5970. REVERSED OCTOBER 3, 1928 United States v. F. Vietor & Achelis (No. 3083).—Reappraisement of silk velvets. Appeal from circular reappraisement 3083. OCTOBER 11, 1928 Hothorn Litzrodt Corporation v. United States (No. 3150).-Exported burlap Appeal from a decision of July 18, 1928. DECEMBER 3, 1928 United States v. Jacob P. Friedman (No. 2965).—Remission—Timeliness. Appeal from Abstract 2642. JANUARY 9, 1929 United States v. F. H. Shallus Co. et al. (No. 3110).—Asbestos shingles. Appeal from Abstract 5453. United States v. Hawaii Mutual Supply Co. et. al (No. 3156).—Yam flour— Konnyakuko. Appeal irom Abstract 6336. AFFIRMED JANUARY 9, 1929 American Salt Co. v. United States (No. 3124).—Salt-Mineral salt. Appeal from T. D. 42824. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART DECEMBER 3, 1928 United States v. Novelty Manufacturing Co. (No. 3062).—Remission--Timeliness of petition. Appeal from Abstract 3883. INDEX-DIGEST, VOLUME 16 This index-digest has been prepared in lieu of the cumulative index heretofore appearing in the volumes of these reports. A similar indexdigest will appear in subsequent volumes as issued. The figures following the various citations refer to the following statutes: (1922), Tariff Act of 1922; (1913), Tariff Act of October 3, 1913; (1921), Emergency Tariff Act of May 27, 1921; (1917), Revenue Act of October 4, 1917; (1919), Revenue Act of February 25, 1919. Abatement of duty. Where goods have remained in warehouse more than three years after importation, with duties paid and delivery permits issued, and are then destroyed by fire, the importer is not entitled to an abatement of duties. Zimmerman Co. v. United States. (1922) _ _ . Accessory. Page 139 An article is an accessory to a machine when its use is casual, auxiliary, or optional. Peter J. Schweitzer (Inc.) v. United States. (1922)- 285 Administrative practice. Where certain articles have been classified as moss, manufactured, for United States v. Pfaltz & Bauer. It is not necessarily true that long-continued administrative practice may be presumed from the fact that, the trial court having directed the classification, the administrative officers are presumed to follow its mandate. The indulgence of such a presumption might lead to serious error. United States v. Bassichis Co. et al. (1922)__ Advanced. (1922) – – Quillai bark which has been cut into chips and then sifted is advanced in condition. United States v. R. Hillier's Son Co. Advances. (See Duress entry.) Agricultural implements. Garden sets, consisting of small spades, spading forks, hoes, rakes, Allowance for loss. Sections 514 and 521, Tariff Act of 1922, do not place a time limit on the provision of section 563, and there is no such statutory limitation. United States v. Chas. J. Webb Sons Co. (1922)__ 43 358 410 103 91. 156. 579 |