act of 1894, and the issue was precisely the same as that now before the court, namely, whether this identical article was dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under the eo nomine classification of cotton "cord" or at 35 per cent ad valorem as "manufactures of cotton not specially provided for." The following is the decision copied in full:

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser:

The merchandise in this case consists of coronation cords made of cotton, assessed for duty at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 263, act of August 28, 1894, but claimed to be entitled to entry at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 264 of said act. The case was heard at Chicago December 1, 1896, where the appellant appeared and testified in his own behalf.

The evidence, which includes a verified sample of the merchandise, shows that the article in controversy is a cotton cord used in appliqué work, and that it is known commercially as coronation braid or cord. The label found in the record has printed upon it the words "coronation braid" and the article is invoiced as "coronation cord." The protest seems to have no merit, and is, therefore, overruled, and the collector's decision is affirmed.

Afterwards in the case of Chas. D. Stone & Co., reported on March 25, 1898, as T. D. 19156, another issue came before the board under the tariff act of 1897 concerning goods of identical character. The question raised in the case was whether the goods were dutiable. under that act at 60 per cent ad valorem as cotton braids or as 45 per cent ad valorem as cotton cord. The board again held the articles to be dutiable as cotton cord. The following is a copy of the decision:

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser: The merchandise in this case consists of cotton coronation cords, assessed for duty at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 339, tariff act of July 24, 1897, as cotton braids, but claimed to be entitled to entry at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 330 of said act.

The case presented here is similar to that covered by board decision in re Buettner, G. A. 3736, rendered December 22, 1896, under the tariff act of 1894. In his special report the appraiser states that the merchandise in question is cotton coronation cords (or braids) "similar in all respects to the merchandise subject of G. A. 3736;' but an examination of the sample shows that the article is a cord and not a braid. It therefore falls directly within the claim of the protest, namely, under paragraph 320, which provides for ''cords, * * made of cotton or other vegetable fiber, whether composed in part of india rubber or otherwise, and not embroidered by hand or machinery."

The protest is sustained, and the decision of the collector reversed, with an appropriate order of reliquidation.

It will be observed that the first of the foregoing decisions was favorable to the Government, whereas the second was favorable to the importers. The appellants contend that the latter case is entitled to little weight as an authority in favor of the cord classification because of the fact that under the tariff act of 1897 "cotton cords" and "manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for" were dutiable at the same rate, to wit, 45 per cent ad valorem, and conse

quently the importers could have no motive in distinguishing between these two classifications. This argument, however, is not applicable to the circumstances of the case. For in that case the merchandise had been assessed at 60 per cent ad valorem as cotton braids, and the importers were objecting to the assessment. It was open to the importers to base their protest upon the claim that the goods were "cotton cords," or upon the claim that they were "manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for," both of which were dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem. As between these two classifications bearing equal duty the importers based their protest upon the claim that the article in question was cotton cord. In this instance the importers could have had no motive except to select the stronger of the two claims; therefore their adoption of the claim that the article was cotton cord was all the more significant. The board sustained this claim, for had not the board found the article to be cotton cord the protest would have been overruled.

It seems that the Government afterwards made up another case for the trial of the same issue under the tariff act of 1897, which met with the same decision at the hands of the board, upon the authority of the case last above cited. Abstract 3554 (T. D. 25735). It appears however, that even before the board's decision in the last case the administrative department had informally acquiesced in the former decision, and from that time on regularly assessed the article in question as cord. The proof of this fact appears in the testimony of the witnesses Wallace, Hadley, Flateau, Appleyard, and Beller, and indeed does not seem to be denied by the appellants. The publication of these decisions and the executive practice founded thereon possess an importance which is independent of any question concerning the correctness of the decisions upon the records then presented to the board or the completeness of the respective records upon the question involved.

Upon these facts it should be assumed that Congress used the word "cord" in the tariff revision of 1909 with the same meaning as that given it by the adjudications above cited and the executive practice had in conformity therewith. United States v. Baruch (223 U. S., 191).

In accordance with the foregoing conclusion the court is convinced that the decision of the board should be affirmed. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of the subject of commercial designation, since in any view of that subject the decision must be the same.

Affirmed.

LANG et al. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1348).1

CASTINGS UNDER PARAGRAPH 147, TARIFF ACT OF 1909.

These are finished castings, molded, drilled, and machined; but to make the machine complete rubber gaskets, filter cloths, bronze fittings, cocks, etc., are required. They are not adapted to the final use for which they were made; they are not "made up into articles."

United States Court of Customs Appeals, June 1, 1914.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34937 (T. D. 34219). [Reversed.]

Hatch & Clute (Walter F. Welch of counsel) for appellants.

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Thomas J. Doherty, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges.

* * *

MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case involves castings which were assessed for duty under paragraph 199 of the tariff act of 1909 as "articles or wares not specially provided for composed wholly or in part of iron." They are claimed by the importer to be classifiable under paragraph 147 of the same act as "castings of iron or cast-iron plates which have been chiseled, drilled, machined, or otherwise advanced in condition, * * * but not made up into articles."

The appraiser reported the merchandise to consist of brewing machines, and as they were not specially provided for they were returned for duty as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199.

The testimony adduced on the part of the importer, which is uncontradicted, shows that the castings were designed for use for mash filters. They are the finished castings, molded, drilled, and machined. But in order to make the machine complete, they require rubber gaskets, which are imported separately from Munich. They also require filter cloths, which are imported from Castile. They also require a considerable amount of copper work, which is made in this country, and also bronze fittings, cocks, etc., made in this country.

The evidence further shows that they are not adapted to the use for which they are ultimately intended in the absence of all these various parts. The board so found. In the opinion it is stated:

The articles are invoiced as mash filters in iron without brass and rubber fittings and without filtering cloths. The evidence, however, establishes that, while certain missing bronze, brass, and rubber fittings are essential to perfect and complete the ma

1 Reported in T. D. 34552 (26 Treas. Dec., 1006).

chines, the invoiced parts are in their imported condition capable of being bolted and fitted in such manner as to cause them to lose their identity as advanced castings and to bring them within the category of manufactured articles of metal.

The assessment was therefore affirmed. The importer appeals. Paragraph 147 has had consideration by this court in two cases. In Jackson v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 475; T. D. 32227) we considered an article admittedly complete in itself except that it was imported in the knockdown. Such an importation, consisting wholly of castings, was held to fall within the term "made up into articles," as all that remained to be done was to assemble it to make it complete.

In United States v. Leigh & Butler (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304; T. D. 33517), on the other hand, we held that castings for use in machines, imported to be sold separately, were dutiable as castings, although as castings they were complete in themselves and might in one sense be termed "articles." This was held upon the ground that the wording of paragraph 147 required such a construction in order to give. any force or effect to the clause "made up into articles." Castings as described in the paragraph clearly contemplated the advance of rough castings to a state which would dedicate them to use in connection with other castings for some practical end. Therefore it would seem that when the limitation was made to castings not made up into articles, such limitation imported that the castings must not only be adapted for use in an article such as a machine, but that its parts when assembled would constitute an article or machine. Is the present importation such a complete article? We think not. It is not yet adapted to its final use, lacking as it does substantial parts, without which it can not be devoted to the ultimate contemplated use. We are not dealing with a case in which the missing parts are inconsequential or insignificant, such, for instance, as screws used in assembling chairs imported in the knockdown, but the case presented is one in which various very substantial parts yet to be imported or manufactured in this country are to be supplied before the casting can be made up into an article adapted to use. To meet the requirement of the statute it must at least constitute substantially the article which is to be finally fitted for use.

While the case is a border-line case, we think that the better view is that above expressed, and giving the importer the benefit of the doubt in construing the statute, the result above indicated is the correct one. The decision of the board will be reversed.

DENIKE v. UNITED STATES (No. 1356).1

MERCHANDISE MADE OF DUTIABLE AND NONDUTIABLE ARTICLES.

These wheels and axles of American manufacture, with tires made in Germany, were shipped into Mexico to have certain alterations made there and were then returned to the United States. The goods were not dutiable as entire ties. The wheels and axles should have been admitted free under paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, as articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States. The tires, made in Germany, were dutiable at 14 cents per pound.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, June 1, 1914.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34555 (T. D. 34090). [Reversed.]

C. W. Wickersham (Charles E. Hughes, jr., of counsel) for appellant.

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (William A. Robertson, special attorney, of counsel; Frank L. Lawrence, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States.

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

Three sets of engine wheels, carrying their tires and mounted on axles, were sent by the Texas-Mexican Railway for repairs to the shops of the National Railways of Mexico, at Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. The wheels and axles were of American manufacture, but the tires were made in Germany, and after importation into this country were fitted to the American wheels. At Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, the tires while still on the wheels, were turned, and as a result of the turning the sharpness of the flange and certain flat spots on the tread were removed. No work was done on the wheels or axles. The cost of turning the tires was $15, and was charged by the Texas-Mexican Railway Co. to engine account. Whether the $15 charged was Mexican or American money does not appear from the record, but we assume it was Mexican money, inasmuch as the work was done in Mexico at the shops of the National Railways of Mexico. After the repairs were made, the wheels, tires, and axles, fitted together, were returned to Laredo, Tex., where they were entered as "3 pairs driving wheels on axles, value $132, free, repairs in Nuevo Laredo shops, value $9; rate of duty 45 per cent," presumably the rate imposed on articles of metal by paragraph 199 of the tariff act of 1909. The duty assessed on the importation by the collector of customs at Laredo was $4.05, which amount was paid by the importer on January 4, 1913. Seven days later the collector of customs reliquidated the entry and exacted a duty of $258.58 on the wheels, tires, and axles as entireties under the provisions of paragraph 171 of the tariff act of 1909, which, in so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

171. Wheels for railway purposes, or parts thereof, made of iron or steel, and steeltired wheels for railway purposes, whether wholly or partly finished, and iron or steel

1 Reported in T. D. 34553 (26 Treas. Dec., 1008).