Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Applications for relief should be forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury for his decision.

(15591.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

Drawback on Oleostearine used in Manufacture of "Lard Compounds."

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1895.

SIR: On the exportation of so-called "lard compounds," manufactured from domestic cotton-seed oil and imported oleostearine, a drawback will be allowed equal in amount to the duty paid on the oleostearine used in the manufacture, less the legal deduction of 1 per cent, provided that no domestic oleostearine shall be so used.

Before allowance of drawback the exporter must file with the collector of customs at the port from which the exportation is to be made a sworn statement showing the place, processes, and conditions of manufacture and mode of packing for export, and also file a formula showing the ingredients contained in the article to be exported and the proportions thereof, which statement and formula shall be verified by the collector.

In case entry for exportation is made at a port other than the port at which an application for allowance of drawback was originally made, the collector at the port of original application shall furnish to the collector at such other port, for his official use, a certified copy of the sworn statement and formula as verified.

The entry under which the merchandise is to be inspected and laden must show separately the mark and number and the gross and net weights of each package, or must be accompanied by an invoice, verified by the seller of the goods, giving such particulars; the weights must be plainly marked on the respective packages, and shall be verified by a United States weigher, who shall test the weight of such packages as may be designated by the collector.

The quantity of oleostearine contained in the exported article shall be shown by the manufacturer's declaration on the drawback entry and verified by analysis, to be made by a Government chemist, of samples taken by the inspecting officer, as ordered by the collector, provided that the quantity of oleostearine which may be taken as the basis of liquidation shall in no case exceed either the quantity shown by the verified formula and the manufacturer's declaration on the drawback entry or that found by the appraiser on analysis; and provided further, that the manufacturer's declaration on the entry shall show, in addition to the usual averments, that the exported article was made in accordance with the sworn formula previously filed with the collector.

This regulation shall take the place of all existing special regulations governing the allowance of drawback on "lard compounds" under the provisions of section 22 of the act of August 28, 1894.

Respectfully, yours,
(7647 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

(15592.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

Paragraphs 36 and 37 of Act of 1890 as to Alizarine Assistant, etc., Repealed by Paragraphs 26 and 27 of Act of 1894.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1895.

GENTLEMEN: The Department has received your letter of the 24th ultimo, in which you inquire whether paragraphs 36 and 37 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, are repealed by section 72 of the act of August 28, 1894, or whether they are still in existence.

In reply, you are informed that section 72 of the act last cited by you repeals all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of the act of August 28, 1894. As the articles which are named in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the act of October 1, 1890, are specially provided for in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the act of August 28, 1894, the former paragraphs are certainly repealed and superseded by the latter. Paragraph 26 of the present tariff act covers "alizarine assistant, or soluble oil, or oleate of soda, or turkey red oil," without limitation or condition, whereas paragraph 36 of the last tariff act affixes certain conditional rates to the same articles.

[blocks in formation]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1895.

SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 17th of December last, in which you inquire whether any objection is perceived to the practice in vogue at your port in the matter of taking declarations of owners of imported goods which arrive either directly or by way of Boston, New York, or Philadelphia.

You state that in the case of vessels which enter first either Boston, New York, or Philadelphia before arrival at your port, the owner of merchandise on the vessel, who may reside at either of said ports, makes his declaration and forwards the same to his broker in Baltimore, who,

immediately after the vessel has arrived at your port and made her preliminary entry, presents said déclaration at your office in order to pass his entries, and that in the case of a vessel arriving direct at your port from a foreign port, and making her entry through the officer designated under the act of June 5, 1894, the declarations are taken before the master of the vessel reports to the custom-house and deposits his manifest. You report also that this practice greatly facilitates the public business, and that no harm or loss can come to the Government in consequence thereof.

This practice appears to be in harmony with the provision of said act and with the regulation requiring that no entry of merchandise shall be made before the arrival of the importing vessel. The Department therefore sees no objections to its continuance.

[blocks in formation]

Examination and Appraisement of Mill Machinery.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 20th of December last, transmitting a communication from Messrs. Stoddard, Lovering & Co. in regard to the examination of imported mill machinery. In Department's circular of July 2, 1892 (Synopsis 13006), it was held that in all cases of appraisements, other than at the office of the appraiser at the port of arrival, the packages containing the goods must, upon being landed from the vessel of importation, be corded and sealed by a customs officer, and you state that this cording and sealing, so far as heavy mill machinery is concerned, amounts to very little, because the weight of the cases almost invariably destroys the seals and the ropes. before the cases reach their destination. In view of your statement, it is directed that hereafter, in place of the cording and sealing in such cases, the following notice, in the form of a card 4 by 6 inches, should be attached to each case, viz :

NOTICE.

This package must not be opened except

under the supervision of a U. S. customs officer.

Upon the importation and due entry of such machinery a preliminary examination and appraisement of at least one case in ten will be made on the wharf, after which the entire lot may be sent, under customs supervision, to the mill of the owners, to be there set up. A final examination and appraisement will thereupon be made. All the expenses

incident to customs supervision of this class of importation must be paid by the owner or importer.

The Department does not consider it prudent to dispense with customs custody until the appraisement has been completed, as such a practice might lead to contention regarding the validity of the appraisements.

In this connection, your attention is invited to the case of Stoddard, Lovering & Co., who in 1892 imported certain machinery at your port, which was forwarded to the mills at Fall River, and set up before the final examination and appraisement were made. Legal proceedings to enforce payment of additional duties were resorted to by the Government, the importers declining to pay the same, on the technical ground that the goods had passed out of the custody of the United States before examination of the same by the appraiser.

Department's instructions contained in Synopsis 13006, 13040, 13274, 13277, 13903, 14357, so far as they are in conflict with the instructions contained herein, are hereby modified accordingly.

Respectfully, yours,
(1205 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Acting Secretary.

(15595.)

No Drawback of Duty Paid on Sacks Imported with Malt when Exported

Empty.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1895.

GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 29th ultimo, the Department has to inform you that no drawback of the duties paid on sacks imported with malt can be allowed on the sacks when exported empty. CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Respectfully, yours,

(7846 g.)

Messrs. JOHN R. SCOTT & Co.,

Acting Secretary.

67 Broad street, New York.

(15596.)

Free Entry of Ewes for Breeding Purposes Denied-No Proper Certificate

Produced.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 5, 1895.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 18th ultimo, submitting the application of Mr. J. U. Bricker, of Grattan, Mich., for the refund of duty paid by him on certain two ewes imported at

your port on November 30 last, it being claimed that the ewes were imported for breeding purposes, and were entitled to free entry.

You report that no claim was made on entry that the ewes were imported for breeding purposes, and that no certificate of pedigree was presented at that time, but that Mr. Bricker has since forwarded such certificate to you, and requests that the duty paid may be refunded.

In reply, I have to inform you that the certificates of pedigree forwarded for the inspection of the Department show that the ewes were admitted to registry in the American Leicester Breeders' Association, certificate dated Cameron, Ill., January 2, 1895, which date is subsequent to the date of importation, and is not the registration contemplated by paragraph 373 of the act of August 28, 1894.

The certificates submitted can not, therefore, be accepted, and the request for the refund of the duties is therefore necessarily denied. CHARLES S. HAMLIN,

Respectfully, yours,

(7743 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Detroit, Mich.

Acting Secretary.

(15597.)

Duty on Harmonicas under the Act of 1890.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 5, 1895.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of two communications from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 3d ultimo, reporting the trials of appraisers' cases, No. 643, United States v. Speigelberg, and No. 641, United States v. Illfelder & Co., in the United States circuit court for that district, which cases were decided adversely to the Government.

The merchandise in these cases consisted of harmonicas of the kind chiefly used by children in play, and were assessed for duty by you at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of metal and wood, metal chief value, under paragraph 215 of the act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming the merchandise to be "toys," and as such dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 436 of said act, which claim was sustained by the Board of United States General Appraisers on the protests filed.

Appeals having been taken by you under the provisions of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890, these cases were duly tried by the United States circuit court, and resulted in an affirmance of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in each case.

The Attorney-General having advised this Department, under date of the 23d ultimo, that no further proceedings will be taken in these

« AnteriorContinuar »