Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

appearing from reports received from the various custom-houses that, in consequence of the damp condition of the stamp at the time of affixing it to the box it is impracticable legibly to number the same, and that the work will be greatly facilitated by the change herein authorized. You will be governed accordingly.

Respectfully, yours,
(6706 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

S. WIKE, Acting Secretary.

(15573.)

Free Entry of Migratory Fish.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 31, 1895.

GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 21st instant, I have to state that all migratory fish, such as alewives, smelt, shad, trout, bass, etc., that is, fish existing part of the year in fresh water, and part of the year in salt water, are not considered salt-water fish, and therefore any such fish caught in fresh waters, and imported frozen or packed in ice in a fresh condition, are exempt from duty under the provisions of paragraph 481 of the act of August 28, 1894.

Under date of the 17th instant, the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York decided that salmon, which belong to the migratory class of fish, caught in salt, brackish, and fresh waters, and not distinctly salt-water fish, are entitled to free entry under the above paragraph when imported in the condition mentioned.

Respectfully, yours,
(6461 g.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

Messrs. A. & R. LOGGIE, Black Brook, N. B., Canada.

(15574.)

Strayed Cattle on Mexican Frontier.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 31, 1895.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, in regard to the practice followed in your collection district in carrying out the provisions of paragraph 373 of the act of August 28, 1894, with particular reference to animals which have been driven across the boundary, or have strayed across for pasturage purposes. In reply thereto, the Department has to state that a circular is now in course of preparation upon the subject, and that copies will be forwarded to you when received from the hands of the printer. In the mean time, you should use all available means within your power to establish the

identity of such animals to your entire satisfaction, and, in cases of doubt, you should assess duty upon the animals; the parties may then make application to this Department for relief. You will understand that the provision of law referred to does not contemplate the free entry of animals which have strayed or been driven across the boundary line from Mexico into the United States. It applies, upon their return, only to those which have strayed or been driven from the United States into contiguous foreign territory; and duties should be assessed upon the former or seizure made according to the circumstances of the case, the same being prima facie dutiable importations. The Department can not authorize any system of branding imported cattle, as suggested by you as a means of their identification, there being no law authorizing the same.

[blocks in formation]

This office is informed through the Department of State that there is no consular officer at Alexandretta, Syria, and that the consular agencies at Flensburg, Germany, and Ronne, Denmark, have been ordered to be closed.

Notes should be made accordingly on Circular 207 of 1894, containing a list of consular offices.

Approved,

S. WIKE,

EUGENE T. CHAMBERLAIN,

Commissioner.

Assistant Secretary.

(15576-G. A. 2836.)

Toys-Decalcomania Pictures.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 13, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 244296-3, of Rogge & Koch, against the decision of the collector of customs at Baltimore as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain cheap decalcomania pictures, imported per Dresden, August 24, 1894.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in question is known in trade as "transfer pictures" or "decalcomania pictures." These pictures are in sheets, folded and

pasted in paper covers. They are invoiced at 11 marks per gross books, and are sold to children by retail toy dealers at 1 cent for each book.

The collector classified the merchandise as lithographic prints, and assessed duty thereon at 20 cents per pound, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 308, act of 1894.

The Board finds from the evidence adduced at the hearing in the case that the cheap decalcomania pictures in question were designed for and are chiefly used by children in play; that they are commonly known in trade as toys, and that they are not used to any considerable extent for decorative purposes. We find further that said pictures were printed by a lithographic process from either stone or zinc, and that they are of the size, thickness, and weight returned by the local appraiser.

In our opinion, the merchandise is more specifically provided for as toys than as lithographic prints. We accordingly sustain the claim of the appellants that the same is dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 321, act 1894, and paragraph 436, act October 1, 1890.

The collector's decison is reversed.

(15577-G. A. 2837.)

Charges, Inspector's, for Discharging Vessel.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 15, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 70021 a-7109, of Jimenes, Haustedt & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Adelene, May 21, 1894.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

We find as facts in this case

(1) The merchandise consists of 281 tons of logwood, which was imported per steamer Adelene, May 22, 1894, and was admitted free of duty as a wood used expressly for dyeing under paragraph 560 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890.

(2) The cargo of the vessel was, at the request of the consignee and other parties interested, discharged at Flushing, L. I., which is within the collection district, but is not within the port of entry of New York as defined by the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) The importer was charged with the sum of $15 for mileage of the customs officers, and the sum of $32 compensation of the inspector who officiated in discharging the cargo in question.

(4) The protest raises the objection that these charges were made without authority of law, and are therefore illegal, and this is the only question for decision by the Board.

The legality of the charges depends upon the construction of section 29 of the act of June 26, 1884, amendatory of section 2776 of the United States Revised Statutes, which amendment reads as follows:

Provided, That vessels arriving at a port of entry in the United States, laden with coal, salt, railroad iron and other like articles in bulk, may proceed to places within that district to be specially designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, by general regulation or otherwise, under the superintendence of customs officers, at the expense of the parties interested, for the purpose of unloading cargoes of the character before mentioned. (23 U. S. Stat., pp. 59, 60; Morgan's U. S. Tariff, Ed. of 1891, p. 147.)

The language of this law is embodied almost literally in the form of a published Treasury regulation. (Treas. Reg., 1892, Art. 128.)

The decision of the issue raised by the protest turns on the meaning of the phrase, "at the expense of the parties interested," used in the above statute. What charges are to be included in these words? It is provided by section 2733 of the United States Revised Statutes that an inspector is entitled to compensation "for every day he is actually employed in aid of the customs.'

The report of the surveyor of customs made in this case states, as we find to be a fact, that the expenses incurred by a vessel are twofold, viz, traveling expenses of the inspector to and from the place of unloading, with his board and lodging, and also his per diem compensation. The latter (the per diem pay) is collected from the parties in interest and covered into the Treasury to reimburse the Government for the loss of the inspector's services in the port at which he is on duty, and this practice is authorized by the Treasury Department. The force of inspectors employed at the port of New York, as further stated by the surveyor, is limited in number, and consequently when an inspector is sent away from the port to discharge a vessel elsewhere it necessarily involves a postponement of some duty which he otherwise would have been detailed to do within the limits of the port. As permits of this kind are granted as a matter of privilege and favor to the parties applying for them, it would seem to be but reasonable that they should indemnify the Government by paying all expenses actually incurred in unloading the merchandise at the distant port.

We are of the opinion that the protestants are chargeable not only with the $15 traveling expenses, but also with item of $32 per diem compensation for the inspector.

The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed.

(15578-G. A. 2838.) Duty on Missing Articles.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 15, 1894. In the matter of the protest, 24411 b-321, of Dr. Hasket Derby, against the decision of the collector of customs at Boston, Mass., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Roman, July 11, 1894.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

We make the following finding of facts in this case:

(1) The merchandise consists of 10 cases of wine, which was entered per steamer Roman on July 11, 1894.

(2) The wine was invoiced as 10 cases, and the vessel's bill of lading called for the same quantity, so that the inference is reasonable that the goods were laden on board of the exporting vessel.

(3) Only 4 cases of the wine were actually received by or delivered to the importer, 6 cases being reported by the inspector as not landed at the port of entry, which was Boston, Mass.

(4) There was no satisfactory evidence offered in explanation of the loss of the missing articles, showing either that they had not been originally laden on board of the exporting vessel, or that they were lost or destroyed by accident during the voyage, in accordance with the requirements of article 922 of the Customs Regulations of 1892.

It is contended in the protest that no duty should be assessed on the 6 missing cases of wine, for the reason that they were never landed and delivered to the importer at Boston.

There can be no question as to the correctness of the legal proposition that, as a general rule, duties under our tariff laws can be assessed and collected only on the actual quantity of merchandise which is imported into this country. (Lawrence v. Caswell, 13 How., 488; Schuchardt v. Lawrence, 3 Blatch., 397.) And it is equally well settled that an importation is complete when the vessel containing the merchandise "arrives at a port of entry intending there to discharge her cargo." v. U. S., 13 Pet., 486; Kidd v. Flagler, 54 Fed. Rep., 367.)

(Meredith

It follows from these principles that if the 6 cases of missing wine actually arrived at the port of Boston they would be dutiable as assessed, although they were for any reason not delivered to the importer. If they were lost, stolen, or destroyed after being "imported," in the sense of this word as above defined, this would not justify the remission of the duties to which the law subjected the goods on arrival. (See Customs Regs. (1892), art. 905-907.) Hence the necessity of article 922 of the Customs Regulations, 1892, which requires satisfactory evidence, designed to show that the missing articles were never laden on the vessel, or were lost or destroyed during the voyage, or, in other words, that they never were in fact imported. In the absence of such evidence the protest must be overruled and the collector's decision affirmed.

(15579-G. A. 2839.) So-called Sunn or Raffia.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 19, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 23122b, by F. B. Vandegrift & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Philadelphia, Pa., as to the rate and amount of duty chargeable on certain raffia, imported per British Prince, May 2, 1894.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The local appraiser at Philadelphia returned the merchandise in this case as "hemp," and it was classified and assessed for duty by the collector under paragraph 360 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, "as hemp, $25 per ton."

« AnteriorContinuar »