WOOL CAPS. Treasury Department, December 3, 1864. Gentlemen: Your appeal (No. 2,424) from the decision of the Collector at New York assessing a duty of 40 per cent ad valorem and 24 cents per pound on certain "Wool Caps," imported per steamers "Hecla" and "New York," is received. 66 You submit samples, and "claim that they are knitted and made on a frame exactly in the same manner as wool hosiery is manufactured," and should pay the same duty of 30 per cent ad valorem and 20 cents per pound." &c. The article in question is made up from woolen cloth, silk, cotton and leather by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer. In the 2d sub-division of section 5 of the act approved June 30, 1864, there is a provision for “" clothing, ready made, and wearing apparel of every description, composed wholly or in part of wool, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor seamstress, or manufacturer, except hosiery," and a duty of 40 per cent ad valorem and 24 cents per pound is imposed thereon. Under this provision of law the Collector assessed the duty on the Caps in question, and his decision is hereby affirmed. Treasury Department, December 13, 1864. Gentlemen: Your appeal (No. 2,443) in behalf of Messrs. STEHN & WULFING, from the decision of the Collector at New York, assessing penal duty on certain Champagne Wine imported by them per "Notre Dame des Victoires," is received. You claim, firstly, that "said Champagne being chargeable with duty at the rates specified in section 2, of the act of Congress approved June 30, 1864, to wit: at the rate of six dollars per dozen bottles, and two cents for each bottle, is not by law subject to the payment of the additional or penal duty demanded." Secondly, because said Champagne being subject to the payment of specific duties, the provisions of section 23, of the act of Cougress approved June 30, 1864, levying in certain cases additional duty of twenty per centum, do not apply. 46 The 1st sub-division of the 2d section of the act approved June 30, 1864, imposes on wines of all kinds, valued at not over fifty cents per gallon, twenty cents per gallon, and twenty-five per centum ad valorem; valued at over fifty cents and not over one dollar per gallon, fifty cents per gallon, and twenty five per centum ad valorem; valued at one dollar per gallon, one dollar per gallon and twenty five per centum ad valore n. Provided, That no Champagne or Sparkling Wines, in bottles, shall pay a less rate of duty than six dollars per dozen bottles, each bottle containing not more than one quart and more than one pint, or six dollars per two dozen bottles, each bottle containing not more than one pint." On the entry of the Wine in question a duty of six dollars per dozen bottles, and two cents on each bottle was paid, under the 1st sub-division of section 2, of the act approved June 30, 1864, as above quoted. The value of the Wines was subsequently appraised, and it was found to exceed by ten per centum or more the entered value, and the additional (or penal) duty of twenty per centum ad valorem was exacted. The duty on Champagne or Sparkling Wines, in bottles," is not exclusively specific; the same schedule which governs "all other wines," as provided for in section 2, above quoted, governs "Champagne or Sparkling Wines, in bottles," but a provision of the law directs that said wines shall not pay a less rate of duty than six dollars per dozen bottles, &c., &c. Unquestionably, if the value justifies it, they must pay more. the It will be seen, therefore, that the duty depends, to a certain extent, upon value, and hence "Champagne and Sparkling Wines, in bottles," are clearly articles upon which the appraisers must pass judgment. If they decide that the dutiable value exceeds the entered value by 10 per centum or more, it is quite immaterial whether or not the regular duty be increased by the advance. I am of the opinion the additional or penal duty properly attaches. The decision of the Collector is hereby affirmed. I am, very respectfully, To Messrs. Webster & Craig, W. P. FESSENDEN, Secretary of the Treasury. Attorneys for Messrs. Stehn & Wulfing, New York. BONE KAMP BITTERS, &C. Treasury Department, December 29, 1864. SIR: Messrs. VAN PRAAG & Co, have appealed (No. 2,464) from your deci sion assessing duty at the rate of 100 per cent ad valorem on certain "Bone Kamp of Maag Bitters" and "Pommerance Spirits," agreeably to a classification adopted in New York, (into which port the articles in question were im ported.) viz.: "Spirituous liquors not otherwise enumerated " under the sixth sub-division of the 2d section of act approved June 30, 1864. The appellants claim that they should be admitted at $2 per gallon under the 2d sub-division of 2d section of act approved June 30, 1864, as "Spirits manufactured or distilled from grain or other materials." The articles in question are commonly known as "Bitters," and are composed of alcohol and aromatic substances; they bear a similitude in some respects both to "spirituous beverages" and "spirituous liquors," provided for in the 2d sec tion of the act approved June 30, 1864, but mostly resembling the latter, and therefore, according to the 20th section of the act of 1842, should pay according to the enumerated article "paying the highest rate." The classification of the Collector at New York, and your assessment of duty at the rate of 100 per cent ad valorem, agreeably thereto, are hereby affirmed. I am, very respectfully, W. P. FESSENDEN, Secretary of the Treasury. To J. Z. Goodrich, Collector, Boston, Mass. IRON WIRE RODS-IN COILS. Treasury Department, January 4, 1864. SIR: The appeals of Messrs. WILLIAM E. RICE & Co. (Nos. 2,363 and 2,364) are received, dated September 2, 1864, from your decision assessing a duty of one and a-half cents per pound on certain "Iron Wire Rods, in Coils," imported ex "Herald of the Morning" and "Golden Hind." The article in question is rolled down bar iron, in shape round, one quarter inch in diameter, bent into a coil. The appellants allege that the article is specially provided for at one and a quarter cents per pound as "rolled or hammered iron, not otherwise provided for." Under previous tariffs it was decided that "steel in coils," was not "steel in bars," and hence there would appear to be some ground for the claim of the ap pellants. A careful examination, however, of the letter of the law shows that the phraseology in reference to steel differs from that relating to iron; the law speaks of steel in bars, and of bar iron. There is more than a verbal distinction between bar iron and iron in bars, and it follows, consequently, that the present question is whether "rounds less than three quarters of an inch in diameter" cease being rounds less than three-quarters of an inch, &c., by being bent into a coil. The language of the "steel clause" in the act approved June 30, 1864. will be found to include "Coils," doubtless because the phraseology as to description has been mainly copied from former acts, but the word " Coils" is not included in the iron clause of same act, unquestionably because it was understood that iron in coils was embraced in the somewhat general term of "bar iron." The decision of the Collector is hereby affirmed. I am, very respectfully, W. P. FESSENDEN, Secretary of the Treasury. To J. Z. Goodrich, Esq., Collector, Boston, Mass. WINES-DUTY ON BOTTLES. Treasury Department, January 4, 1865. SIR: The appeal of JAMES DE FREMERY, (No. 2,407.) dated September 9, 1864, from your decision assessing certain duty on five hundred an 1 ninety (590) cases of claret, and one hundred and forty-six (146) cases white win, imported on the 27th July, 1864, in the French bark "Cesambre," from Bordeaux, is re ceived. The ground of appeal in this case is, that in ascertaining the ditiable value of the wine in question, under the 24th section of the act approved June 30, 1864, you included the value of the bottles, boxes, &c.. in the value of the wine; and that you have assessed a duty of two cents each on the bottles. The appellant claims that "under the first subvision of section 2, act approved June 30, 1864, the specific duty of 20 cents, 50 cents, and $1, respectively, should be regulated by the value of the wine without including therein the value of boxes and bottles or other charges; said duty is regulated by the value of the wine itself * * , and the 24th section does not * apply to the manner of determining said specific duties for the reason that it relates exclusively to dutiable value. * * * The 24th section, above alluded to, provides in very explicit language, that in determining the value of goods, &c., upon which duties are to be assessed, the actual value of such goods on shipboard at the last place of ship nent to the United States, shall be deemed their dutiable value; and this value includes every expense attending the transportation of the goods from their places of production to the place of shipment, together with the value of the boxes, bottles, &c., in which such goods are contained. There is but this one rule given for ascertaining the dutiable value of goods, &c., imported, and there can be but one dutiable value, for the same goods, whether the duty to be assessed is specific, according to value, or ad valorem. Therefore the same valuation must attach to the wine for the purpose of the specific duty, per gallon, as for the ad valorem duty. The words in the 24th section, "except as hereinbefore provided," have special reference to the exception in favor of wool, &c. See section 4, act approved June 30, 1864. The cost of the bottles, boxes, &c., and charges were therefore properly em braced as part of the value of the wines; and no duty being assessed on the bottles, as bottles, it follows as a matter of course the duty of two cents each as provided in section 2 of said act properly attaches. Your decision is hereby affir.ned. I am, very respectfully, W. P. FESSENDEN, Secretary of the Treasury. To Charles James, Esq., Collector, San Francisco, California. IRON BANDS ON SHEET IRON-TARE ALLOWED. Treasury Department, January 4, 1865. SIR: Messrs. AYMAR & Co. have appealed (No. 2,452) under date Dece.nber 8, 1864, from your decision assessing a duty of 3 cents per pound on the "Iron Bands," which they allege secured the sheets of iron imported by them per "Heiress" and "Telegraph" from St. Petersburg, Russia. They further allege that the iron bands in question " are simply common hoops of the poorest iron; are worth nothing to the importer, or to any body else, except as a common de scription of old iron, and as such would not bring as much as the duty;" and that hitherto such bands have always been deducted as tare. I am informed it is the uniform practice at other ports to consider iron bands brought into the country, under the circumstances as above stated, as tare. The bands in question, it appears, are of but trifling value; are absolutely ne cessary to insure the safe transportation of the sheets of iron; are not deemed to be an item of expense to the importer; and are thought to be no more liable to duty than iron hoops around casks or boxes, the contents of which pay specific duties only, uninfluenced by value. In my opinion the bands should be considered tare, and you are hereby instructed to adjust the entry accordingly. I am, very respectfully, W. P. FESSENDEN, Secretary of the Treasury. To Simeon Draper, Esq., Collector, New York. DROSS LEAD, (SO STYLED.) CLASSIFIED LEAD ore. Treasury Department, January 16, 1865. SIR: Your appeal (No. 2,479) is received, dated January 9, 1865, in behalf of Messrs. J. J. CROOKE & Co., from the decision of the Collector at New York, assessing a duty of one and one half cents per pound on certain Dross Lead," (so styled,) imported per ship" Universe," from Liverpool. You claim that the article in question, being raw or unmanufactured, is liable to a duty of 10 per cent only. The experts of the customs have classified the article as "lead ore," and report, that "although it varies from some of the descriptions of lead ores, and may not in all respects come up to the quality found in the usual article in commerce, it is of a character that cannot be treated otherwise than our (their) classification indicates." From the facts given by the appraisers, I think there can be no doubt that the article in question is liable to a duty of one and one-half cents per pound, of virtue of the 20th section of the act of August 30, 1842. The decision of the Collector is hereby affirmed. By order. I am, very respectfully, GEO. HARRINGTON, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. To S. P. Russel, Esq., No. 39 Wall Street, Jauncey Court, New York, CONTENTS OF JUNE NUMBER. ART. 1. Jacob Little. By Matthew IIale Smith... 2. National Debt and Resources. By T. M., PAGE 409 3. The Reciprocity Question. By William J. Patterson, Secretary Board of Trade, Montreal. 4:7 4. A Convention of Merchants... 5. Commercial Law.-No. 22. The Law of Shipping 6. Commercial Chronicle and Review. 7. Journal of Banking, Currency, and Finance... 8. Statistics of Trade and Commerce 9. Commercial Regulations.- Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 10. Trade with the South. Rules and Regulations Concerning Commercial Intercourse with Insurrectionary States.... 11. Official Copies of Decisions of the Secretary of the Treasury Under the Tariff Acts....... 437 $35533933 95 443 448 471 |