BEFORE BOARD 1, SEPTEMBER 4, 1913. No. 33489.-FUR AND METAL HAND BAGS.-Protest 695231 of R. H. Macy & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Women's hand bags composed of fur and metal assessed as silk beaded articles under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, found to be in part of metal, were held dutiable under paragraph 199, as claimed. No. 33490.-FISH IN TINS.-Protests 453074, etc., of Wm. A. Bird (Buffalo), protests 408389-31139, etc., of C. L. Benson et al., and protests 684105-43605, etc., of R. B. Boak & Co. et al. (Chicago), protests 433080, etc., of Austin, Nichols & Co., protests 443038, etc., of Park & Tilford, and protests 695785, etc., of Standard Importing Co. (New York). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33312) and United States v. Rosenstein (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304; T. D. 31357) followed as to fish in tins. Protests sustained in part. No. 33491.-FISH, FROZEN.-Protest 703206 of W. A. Fleetham and protest 683573 of B. R. Lawrence (Detroit). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. Merchandise assessed as fresh mackerel under paragraph 273, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable under the provision for fish, frozen, in the same paragraph. United States v. Perry (171 Fed., 303; T. D. 29691) followed. No. 33492.-BEADED BAGS.-Protests 588836, etc., of A. Steinhardt & Bro. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Beaded bags were held dutiable as articles in chief value of beads under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Abstract 26173 (T. D. 31774) followed. Protests sustained in part. No. 33493.-COIN CASES.-Protest 540667 of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Coin cases and chatelaine ornaments made of silver and gun metal, classified under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 199), as claimed. Protest sustained in part. No. 33494.-BEADED ARTICLES.-Protest 678571 of Henry Buss & Co., protest 646669 and protest 667332 of C. H. Eden Co., and protest 616364 of A. J. Hague (New York). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. Certain beaded articles assessed under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, were found to be toys, dutiable under paragraph 431, as claimed. Protests sustained in part. G. A. 7288 (T. D. 31965) and G. A. 7251 (T. D. 31786) followed. No. 33495.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 699435, etc., of General Electric Co. (Boston), protest 670606-42968 of Swartchild & Co. (Chicago), protest 672702 of H. Buss & Co., protest 679219 of Cohn & Rosenberger, protest 696645 of L. Mendelson & Co., and protest 625693 of Royal Jewelry Mfg. Co. (New York), and 674248 of Kaufmann Bros. (Pittsburgh). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 33496.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protest 614574 of George Borgfeldt & Co. (San Francisco). Protest abandoned. BEFORE BOArd 2, September 4, 1913. No. 33497.-WORM GUT FISHING TACKLE.-Protest 629957 of M. Furuya Co. (Port Townsend). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Worm gut assessed as fishing tackle under paragraph 165, tariff act of 1909, was held free of duty as worm gut unmanufactured (par. 529). Abstract 25271 (T. D. 31478) followed. No. 33498.-LEAD DROSS-WEIGHT.-Protest 637692 of J. Kovinsky (Detroit). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. So-called tea lead ashes were held dutiable on the basis of the weight of the dross and not the weight of lead content, under paragraph 182, tariff act of 1909. Protest overruled. G. A. 6604 (T. D. 28203) noted. No. 33499.-MACHINES-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protests 640540, etc., of Heppenstall Forge & Knife Co. et al. (Pittsburgh). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. A cutting-off machine for working on metal bars and a machine used for removing grease applied to glasses before engraving were held dutiable as assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not as machine tools (par. 197). No. 33500.-NUT BLANKS-METAL ARTICLES.-Protests 680643, etc., of Detroit Screw Works (Detroit). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Nut blanks, having a hole punched through them but no thread cut, classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable by similitude as iron or steel nuts (pars. 162 and 481). Protests overruled. No. 33501.-JEWELRY BOXES.-Protest 665567 of Hammil, Riglander & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Jewelry boxes, made of wooden sides with tops and bottoms of wood and pasteboard, covered with surface-coated paper and lined with cotton velvet or silk, were held dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. No. 33502.-POST CARDS.-Protest 670642 of German American Book Store (Detroit). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Post cards printed from metal plates by the so-called 3-color process were held properly classified as printed matter under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909. No. 33503.-IMITATION ONIONSKIN PAPER.-Protest 700182 of O. M. Steinman (Cleveland). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Imitation onionskin paper classified under the provisions of paragraph 413, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be wrapping paper (par. 415). Protest overruled. No. 33504.-GELATIN PRINTS LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS.-Protests 339521, etc., of the Gibson Art Co. (Cincinnati). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Post cards printed by the so-called gelatin process, classified as printed matter under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as lithographic printe (par. 400). The Rotograph Co. v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 82; T. D. 31106) followed. No. 33505.-PULL CARDS.-Protest 682381 of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protest overruled on the authority of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., ; T. D. 33370) relating to pull cards assessed under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. No. 33506.-GREASE-PROOF AND IMITATION PARCHMENT PAPER.-Protests 624395, etc., of M. Harrison & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Grease-proof and imitation parchment paper assessed under paragraph 413, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable under the provision therefor in paragraph 411, as claimed. G. A. 7438 (T. D. 33238) followed. No. 33507.-SUPERCALENDERED GREASE-PROOF IMITATION PARCHMENT PAPER.Protest 588389 of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Merchandise classified as imitation parchment paper with printed surface design was held dutiable under the provision for "grease-proof and imitation parchment papers which have been supercalendered and rendered transparent" in paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7136 (T. D. 31133) followed. No. 33508.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 690206 of B. R. Lawrence (Detroit). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 33509.-FLAX FABRICS.-Protests 623701, etc., of Gustav Schaefer, et al. (Cleveland). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protests overruled as to flax fabrics, coated, assessed under paragraph 357, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7104 (T. D. 30967) followed. BEFORE BOARD 1, SEPTEMBER 5, 1913. No. 33510.-FISH IN TINS.-Protests 440697, etc., of Meyer & Lang et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. United States v. Rosenstein (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304; T. D. 31357) and United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33312) followed as to fish in tins. Protests sustained in part. BEFORE BOARD 2, September 5, 1913. No. 33511.-WINDOWPHANIE PAPER.-Protest 657209 of Chas. Bacheberle (Cincinnati). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On the authority of Knauth v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33199) windowphanie paper was held dutiable at 44 cents per pound under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. No. 33512.-PRINTED AND EMBOSSED CARDS-PRINTED MATTER.-Protest 703795 of A. Kagan (Boston). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Printed and embossed cards classified as embossed printed matter under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as embossed articles of paper (par. 412). The merchandise was held dutiable as printed matter (par. 416) on authority of United States v. Fuld (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33476). Protest overruled. No. 33513.-WALL CARDS-PRINTED MATTER.-Protests 694386, etc., of A. W. Fenton, jr. (Cleveland). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Cards or placards with printed text, assessed as "printed matter other than lithographic" under paragraph 411, were claimed dutiable under the provision for printed coated papers in the same paragraph. Protests overruled. No. 33514.-ADHESIVE FELT FOR SHEATHING VESSELS.-Protest 693864 of Laing, Harrar & Chamberlain (Philadelphia). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7451 (T. D. 33302) the merchandise in question was held free of duty as adhesive felt for sheathing vessels under paragraph 564, tariff act of 1909. Protest sustained. No. 33515.-IRON CASTINGS.-Protests 698787, etc., of Leigh & Butler (Boston). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Cast-iron repair parts for textile machinery, assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as iron castings advanced in condition (par. 147). Protests sustained in part. United States v. Leigh (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33517) followed. No. 33516.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 676998, etc., of J. Domnitz (Pittsburgh). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 33517.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protest 692198 of T. D. Downing & Co. (Boston), protest 653159 of Packard Motor Car Co. (Detroit), protest 700193 of EmeryBird-Thayer Dry Goods Co. (Kansas City), and protests 643404 and 645780, etc., of George Borgfeldt & Co. (San Francisco). Protests abandoned. (T. D. 33728.) Picture frames-Free entry. Where pictures are admitted free of duty under bond for exhibition under paragraph 715, tariff act of August 5, 1909, the frames should also be passed free of duty. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 8, 1913. SIR: The department refers to your letter of the 7th of July last, further in relation to the classification of frames where the pictures contained therein are admitted free of duty under bond for exhibition, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 715 of the tariff act of 1909. In its letter of July 1 last the department expressed the opinion that all frames of pictures which are entered under bond under paragraph 715 are properly subject to duty unless the frames are found by the appraiser to have sufficient artistic merit to constitute them works of art. The principle that pictures and the frames containing the same are separable for customs purposes was decided by the United States Circuit Court in Hensel et al. v. United States (99 Fed., 722), and the identical question here presented was the subject of an opinion of the Attorney General dated November 15, 1904 (25 Op., 276), wherein he advised the Secretary of the Treasury that the frame containing a painting imported for exhibition purposes under paragraph 702 of the act of July 24, 1897, corresponding to paragraph 715 of the existing act, could not be admitted free of duty under bond. However, in view of the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers in Abstract 14973 (T. D. 28074), holding that where the picture was admitted free of duty under bond for exhibition purposes, under paragraph 702 of the act of 1897, the frame containing the same should also be passed free of duty, which decision has been followed at the principal ports, the department has reached the conclusion that a picture and frame should for the purpose of paragraph 715 be treated as an entirety and the frame and picture be admitted free of duty under bond. The practice in force at your port is hereby approved and the instructions contained in the department's letter of July 1 last are hereby modified accordingly. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Philadelphia, Pa. (T. D. 33729.) Drawback on men's two-piece suits. T. D. 32580 of June 3, 1912, providing for allowance of drawback on two-piece suits manufactured by the Snellenburg Clothing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported woolen cloth, mohair linings, and canvas, amended to provide for use of cloth whether of wool or other material. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 11, 1913. SIR: The department's regulations of June 3, 1912 (T. D. 32580), providing for the allowance of drawback on men's two-piece suits. manufactured by the Snellenburg Clothing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported woolen cloth, mohair linings, and canvas, are hereby amended to provide for the allowance of drawback on such suits when manufactured from imported cloth whether of woolen or other material. The manufacturer's sworn statement of April 11, 1912, which is on file at your port, covers the use of cloth of various kinds. The allowance shall not exceed the quantities of imported materials shown in the abstract from the manufacturing record, with a maximum in the case of the cloth of 4 yards per suit. Respectfully, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Philadelphia, Pa. (T. D. 33730.) Plant quarantine act. Additions to the list of countries published in T. D. 33697 which have complied with the inspection and certification requirements of the Department of Agriculture. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 13, 1913. To collectors and other officers of the customs: At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture the following-named countries, with the designations which the seals of their inspection. certificates will bear, are hereby added to the list of countries pub |