shown by the sworn schedule of the manufacturers, dated May 1, 1913, transmitted herewith, except in the case of "Crispy Fluffs," in which case the quantity of refined sugar which shall be taken as a basis for the estimation of the drawback shall not exceed 40 per cent of the exported candy. Supplemental sworn schedules covering other brands of candies manufactured by the Max Glick Co. may be filed, and upon verification of such schedules, drawback may be allowed on the candies covered thereby. Drawback on turret lathes, boring mills, tool grinders, and other similar machines manufactured by the Gisholt Machine Co., of Madison, Wis., with the use of imported steel castings. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 15, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on turret lathes, boring mills, tool grinders, and other similar machines manufactured by the Gisholt Machine Co., of Madison, Wis., with the use of imported steel castings. A manufacturing record shall be kept, which will show, in addition to the usual data, the character, size, and weight of each machine manufactured for exportation with benefit of drawback, the number, character, and weight of imported castings used in the manufacture thereof, the weight of the machine parts manufactured from the imported castings in the finished condition, the quantity of waste incurred, and the value of such waste. A sworn abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry. The allowance shall not exceed the weight of the imported castings used in the manufacture of the exported machines, as shown by the abstract from the manufacturing record, the allowance to be reduced according to the value of the waste. The sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated July 18, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Respectfully, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Milwaukee, Wis. (T. D. 33690.) Drawback on photolibrary paste and office paste. Drawback on photolibrary paste and office paste manufactured by the Carter's Ink Co., of Cambridge, Mass., with the use of imported dextrin.-T. D. 27139 of February 20, 1906, revoked. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 15, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on photolibrary paste and office paste manufactured by the Carter's Ink Co., of Cambridge, Mass., with the use of imported dextrin. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported dextrin used in the manufacture of the exported paste, as shown by the sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated July 26, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Supplemental sworn statements may be filed covering paste manufactured by this company with the use of imported dextrin, and upon verification of such schedules drawback may be allowed. on the paste covered thereby. T. D. 27139 of February 20, 1906, is hereby revoked. Respectfully, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (T. D. 33691.) Wood pulp and paper- Most-favored-nation treaty clauses. Collectors instructed to refuse free entry and to suspend liquidation of entries of wood pulp and paper under T. D. 33656 and T. D. 33671 where there has been transshipment of the merchandise en route. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 15, 1913. SIR: Referring to T. D. 33556 and T. D. 33671 of the 28th ultimo and 8th instant, I have to state that the question as to whether wood pulp imported from various European countries which has been transshipped en route is free of duty under the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals in T. D. 33434 will be submitted to the Attorney General for an opinion. You will, therefore, until further advised, refuse to admit to free entry all such pulp and paper when transshipped en route, and will suspend liquidation of all entries covering such merchandise until further instructed by the department. Respectfully, (85245.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. (T. D. 33692-G. A. 7487.) Castor beans or seed-Tare. Tare, When Allowable. The ordinary impurities of merchandise, such as dirt and other materials, do not constitute tare, but the extraordinary impurities, such as are uncommonly present in the merchandise as bought and sold in trade and commerce, are alone the subject of allowance for dutiable purposes. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 12, 1913. In the matter of protests 656748, etc., of the Baker Castor Oil Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers; WAITE, G. A., absent). SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of castor beans or seeds. It was assessed for duty under paragraph 266 of the tariff act of 1909, which, so far as pertinent, reads as follows: 266. Seeds: Castor beans or seeds, twenty-five cents per bushel of fifty pounds. The importers claim that due allowance should be made for the "impurities always present in such merchandise, the percentage of which can be demonstrated by our factory record, by an analysis of the official sample taken by the appraiser, or by authenticated records as to the allowance between buyer and seller." The collector in each case reports as follows: Duty was assessed upon the merchandise in question at 25 cents per bushel of 50 pounds under paragraph 266, based upon the net weight thereof as returned by the United States weigher. No evidence has been submitted to show that the merchandise contained abnormal quantities of foreign matter, hence the assessment of duty as made is affirmed. Note Abstract 27761 (T. D. 32284). The merchandise contained various quantities of impurities consisting of dirt and other materials, and it is claimed that none of these impurities should be assessed for duty, but that the weight thereof should be deducted from the weight of the merchandise before assessment. The case of Seeberger v. Wright (157 U. S., 183) is relied on by the importers in support of their contention. This case was considered by the Court of Customs Appeals in Shallus v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 316; T. D. 31408), and it was said "the principle as to when tare is allowable is stated in effect that tare should be allowed only in such cases where its presence was uncommon to the condition of the merchandise as ordinarily dealt in in trade and commerce. In other words, the ordinary impurities of merchandise do not constitute tare, but the extraordinary impurities, such as are uncommonly present in the merchandise as bought and sold in trade and commerce are alone the subject of allowance for dutiable purposes." United States v. Reid, Murdoch & Co. (120 Fed., 242); Spencer & Co. v. United States (143 Fed., 916; T. D. 26974). The same question was passed on by the Court of Customs Appeals in United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 32076), where it was held that impurities ordinarily present in an article of merchandise do not constitute tare; only those impurities not ordinarily present in the merchandise as traded in may be the subject of an allowance for tare. The various rulings on testimony are affirmed. No claim is made in this case for a deduction of the excess above 3 per cent, as decided in said case. On authority of the foregoing decisions the protests are overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed in each instance. DECORATED CHINA. (T. D. 33693-G. A. 7488.) An article of chinaware that has had designs etched upon it with acid by means of a stencil and to which must be applied gold in order to complete the decoration should be classified as decorated china under the provisions of paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 12, 1913. In the matter of protest 605659 of M. T. Wyme against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers; WAITE, G. A., absent). HAY, General Appraiser: The merchandise which is the subject of this protest is white china plates, upon the surface of which a design has been etched to be thereafter gilded. The only witness who appears in this case describes this process as follows: It is waxed and then the plate rough etched out with a stencil with this design on, put the stencil on, work the acid in on the design, let it dry, and then bring out the parts you want to design. The process is one not uncommon in the ornamentation of fine china. To the design thus etched with acid gold is applied to beautify and complete the design. This merchandise was assessed under paragraph 93 of the tariff act of 1909, which provides for all forms of china, porcelain, parian, bisque, etc., which has been "painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or ornamented or decorated in any manner." It is claimed that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 94. This paragraph embraces the same kind of articles as paragraph 93, but only those that are plain white, plain brown, and not painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or decorated in any manner. As an alternative, it is claimed dutiable under paragraph 92, which provides for "common yellow, brown, or gray earthenware, plain, embossed, or salt-glazed common stoneware." We give no consideration to this alternative claim, as the record clearly shows that the plate unquestionably is china. The only question therefore is whether or not the plates in question are ornamented or decorated in any manner, for it is quite apparent that they are not painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, or printed. The etching above described is done as a part of the work of ornamenting or decorating the plates. The process of decoration has gone on to the extent that the design is put upon the plate. It is true it is not completed, but does not an examination of the china and porcelain paragraphs of the tariff law clearly indicate that it is the intention of Congress to embrace within paragraph 93 all articles that are not plain; in other words, all articles coming within the paragraph in all respects either partly ornamented or partly decorated? If there should be imported a plate upon which a design in the center had been completed, either with color or with gilt, and the design upon the rim of the plate was just in the condition of the present plate, could it be said that that plate was plain or that it was not ornamented or decorated in any manner? There would seem to be no place to draw the line except where nothing had been done toward ornamenting or decorating the plate; in other words, to be dutiable under paragraph 94 the china must be plain. The plate here under consideration is unquestionably not that. The plate had been partially ornamented or partially decorated before it was imported, or at least part of the work by which it is to be decorated had been performed. We think the collector's classification was correct. The protest is therefore overruled. (T. D. 33694-G. A. 7489.) PERSONAL EFFECTS-NONRESIDENT. A citizen of the United States who accepts employment in a foreign country, expecting to remain there indefinitely, and who does remain there in that employment for 18 years and then returns to the United States without having any residence in this country or any place of abode in any city or State is not a resident of the United States so as to come within the purview of the proviso of paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 12, 1913. In the matter of protests 686222, etc., of H. T. Terry against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston. Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers; WAITE, G. A., absent). HAY, General Appraiser: This is a claim for free entry of baggage under paragraph 709 of the act of 1909. The protestant came into the United States at the port of Boston and his wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment, toilet articles, and similar personal effects were assessed for duty by the collector as if he were a resident of the United States. The protestant claims that he is not a resident of the United States and entitled to the provisions of paragraph 709 |