No. 33915.-PRINTED AND EMBOSSED CARDS.-Protest 707170 of W. C. Blodgett & Co. (Boston). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Printed and embossed cards assessed under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as printed matter (par. 416). Protest sustained. United States v. Fuld (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33476) followed. No. 33916.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 706338, etc., of Carter Rice & Co. et al. (Boston), and protests 693627, etc., of May Department Stores Co. et al. (St. Louis). Opinions by Fischer, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 33917.-ARTIFICIAL HORSEHAIR.-Protest 301629 of F. Schumacher & Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Cochran (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 57; T. D. 32349) woven fabrics composed of artificial horsehair and cotton, assessed under paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable by similitude to cotton cloth (par. 308). Protest sustained in part. BEFORE BOARD 3, OCTOBER 22, 1913. No. 33918.-BEANS IN TINS.-Protests 683888, etc., of Wm. A. Brown & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protests overruled as to beans in tins assessed under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909. No. 33919.-SHELLED ALMONDS.-Protest 550064 of John L.Vandiver (Philadelphia). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7199 (T. D. 31475) shelled almonds were held properly assessed under paragraph 280, tariff act of 1909. No. 33920.-AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED.-Protests 701961, etc., of F. S. Maynard & Son et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury not having been complied with, protests overruled claiming free entry under paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, for certain shooks or barrels. No. 33921.-SHORTAGE.-Protest 696274 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protest overruled claiming shortage. No. 33922.-ROTTEN FRUIT.-Protest 325699 of Philip W. Saitta (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. United States v. Shallus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332; T. D. 32074) followed as to allowance in duty for rotten fruit. Protest sustained in part. No. 33923.-LEAKAGE.-Protests 663962 of Klein Bros. (Cincinnati), protests 703348, etc., of A. A. Salomon, jr., & Co. (New York), and protest 645374 of Geo. S. Bush & Co. (Port Townsend). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Shaw (144 Fed., 329; T. D. 27226) and Aurola v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 340; T. D. 32077) protests overruled claiming an allowance in duty on account of leakage. No. 33924.-STILL WINE-PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL.-Protest 689674-43946 of International Forwarding Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protest overruled as to percentage of alcohol in still wine in casks. Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 176; T. D. 32462) followed. 3437-VOL 25-13-20 No. 33925.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 700426, etc., of Castle, Gottheil & Overton et al. (Boston), protest 705113-44393 of G. W. Sheldon & Co., and protest 630891-42160 of C. D. Stone & Co. (Chicago), and protest 671466 of L. Amendola, protest 703244 of Arthur Courtin Co., and protest 698299 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 33926. CLERICAL ERRor-ReliquidATION.-Protest 635328-42254 of Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. (Chicago). HAY, General Appraiser: Heretofore, to wit, on the 27th day of February, 1912, the protestant filed a protest against the action of the collector in the liquidation of the entry of certain merchandise. That entry covered a large number of items upon a long invoice. The protestant described the pattern numbers of the articles in question and specified the cases as numbered upon the invoice in which they were contained. In that protest one case, to wit, No. 4480, was omitted. The protest was sustained and the collector reliquidated in accordance with the mandate of the board, but omitted from the reliquidation case numbered 4480 for the reason that it was not stated in the protest and hence not included in the board's mandate. In this the collector was unquestionably right. The protest now under consideration was filed against that liquidation. Construing the protest liberally it may be held to claim not only that the collector should have reliquidated all, including that case, but that a clerical error was made by the importer in not including it in his original protest, and from that error he should be relieved. There was certainly no error in the collector's action in reliquidating in exact accordance with the board's mandate. Under the former protest the board could not have gone outside of the protest itself and decided a question with reference to a case not enumerated. It is a familiar rule of pleading that the specific inclusion of items is, in effect, the exclusion of items not enumerated therein. This protest carried the claim of clerical error beyond the point where it has been carried by this board or the courts. To sustain this claim upon the ground of clerical error would be the same, in effect, as to have permitted the protestant to amend his protest at the time of the trial, and this, it has been held many times, he can not do. The protest is overruled. No. 33927. CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 700634 of Harold Rice (Boston), protest 669246 of Steiner, Herrmann & Goldfrank (New York), and protest 619214 of Nozaki Bros. (San Francisco). Opinions by Hay, G. A. United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33437) and United States v. Wyman (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33485) followed as to manifest clerical errors. Protests sustained. No. 33928.-CLERICAL ERROR NOT MANIFEST.-Protest 670967 of Jordan-Marsh Co. (Boston), protest 663093 of B. Lowenstein & Bros. (Memphis), protest 697117 of J. W. Hampton, jr., & Co., protest 658345 of International Power Co., and protest 698135 of Lamont, Corliss & Co. (New York), protest 655044 of Frank Waterhouse & Co. (Port Townsend), protest 661861 of S. & G. Gump Co., and protest 666834 of Hind, Rolph & Co. (San Francisco), and protest 672023 of A. Vincente & Co. (San Juan). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled claiming clerical error, the board finding that the errors were not manifest from the papers that were before the collector. United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33437), United States v. Wyman (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33485) and G. A. 7476 (T. D. 33590) followed. No. 33929.-VALIDITY OF REAPPRAISEMENT.-Protest 594759 of Oelrichs & Co. (New York), and protests 671462, etc., of Thos. Kenworthy's Sons (Philadelphia). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled claiming that certain reappraisement proceedings were invalid. No. 33930.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 692404-44079, etc., of H. Philipsborn et al. (Chicago), and protests 523313, etc., of Stern Bros. et al. (New York). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. (T. D. 33817.) A fee of $1 is required for each entry protested against. Protests will not be for warded to the Board of General Appraisers until the protest fee is deposited. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 27, 1913. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, in which you state that a firm of customs brokers has notified you that it intends to consolidate a number of entries in one protest, in order to avoid the payment of the protest fee required in paragraph N of section 3 of the act of October 3, 1913. Paragraph N expressly provides that the decision of the collector shall be final and conclusive unless the owner, importer, consignee, or agent shall file a protest in writing * setting forth therein distinctly and specifically and in respect to each entry or payment the reason for his objections. The department is of the opinion that a so-called protest covering a number of different entries and payments and raising numerous questions relating to different importations would not comply with the requirements of the statute cited. The department is further of the opinion that the decision of a collector of customs against which protest may be made under said paragraph is the liquidation of an entry; that an expression of dissatisfaction with such liquidation constitutes a protest, and that the fee provided is chargeable upon each protest, even though a number of protests be included in one paper or document. You will therefore forward protests to the Board of United States General Appraisers only upon the payment of a fee of $1 for each liquidation protested against. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of customs cases has been requested to object to the validity of each so-called protest when the liquidation of more than one entry is included in one paper or document, on the ground that the same does not distinctly and specifically set forth the reason for the objections in respect to each entry or payment. Respectfully, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, St. Louis, Mo. (T. D. 33818.) Drawback on olives. T. D. 33613 of July 11, 1913, extended to cover kitted olives manufactured by R. C. Williams & Co., of New York, N. Y., from olives imported in bulk. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 28, 1913. SIR: The department's regulations of July 11, 1913 (T. D. 33613), extending T. D. 33284 of March 21, 1913, to provide for the payment of drawback on bottled plain pitted and stuffed olives, produced by R. C. Williams & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of olives imported in bulk, are hereby extended to cover kitted olives produced by R. C. Williams & Co. from olives imported in bulk, by selecting, picking, packing, and rebrining in kits or kegs of not more than 5 gallons capacity. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported olives appearing in the exported kits or kegs, as shown by the sworn statement of the producer, dated May 31, 1913, which is now on file in your office. Drawback on bags manufactured by the Bemis Bro. Bag Co. at their St. Louis factory from imported burlap. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 28, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under paragraph O of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and the drawback regulations (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on bags manufactured by the Bemis Bro. Bag Co. in their St. Louis factory from burlap imported under the tariff act of August 5, 1909. A manufacturing record shall be kept, which will show, in addition to the usual data, the actual date of manufacture of each lot of bags manufactured for exportation with benefit of drawback, the number of yards, width, and weight of imported burlap used, the number of bags and dimensions thereof produced, the quantity of waste suitable for patching, and the quantity of waste suitable only for paper stock resulting, the value of the waste, and the value of the imported material used. A sworn abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry, and shall, in the discretion of the collector, be verified by comparison with the manufacturing records. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported burlap used in the manufacture of the exported bags, as shown by the abstract from the manufacturing records, the allowance to be reduced according to the quantity of imported material which will be replaced by the value of the waste. The sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated April 28, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by McKesson & Robbins, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 28, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under paragraph O of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and the drawback regulations (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on medicinal preparations manufactured by McKesson & Robbins, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of domestic tax-paid alcohol appearing in the exported medicinal preparations, as shown by the sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated September 15, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (T. D. 33821.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Paragraph 310 of Schedule K, tariff act of 1913, construed. Only the articles and manufactures of wool provided for in Schedule K of paragraph 310, tariff act of 1913, are dutiable under the provisions of Schedule K, tariff act of 1909, until January 1, 1914. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 28, 1913. SIR: The department is in receipt of a letter requesting a ruling as to the proper classification of press cloth composed of camel's hair imported expressly for oil-milling purposes, in view of paragraph 310 |