observe that law in taxing. The importers protest. In some cases the protests have been sustained. I have not been able, however, to find one where, in my judgment, such a decision of the board was in accordance with law and the facts. Usually, as in the two cases at bar, the reliance for free entry was under paragraph 477, entitled "Drugs," and that paragraph uses specifically language to show beyond controversy what seeds may be considered free as drugs. Parsley is not mentioned in that paragraph at all, but generally seeds that are not named in the paragraph may be admitted if they are "aromatic" and "not garden seeds," or "seeds of morbid growth;" "any of the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible and not specially provided for in this section." Paragraph 212 is in this same section.

There is another principle as old as the law that holds that the general and common use of imported merchandise, and not the special use of a particular importation, fixes its dutiability or free character.

In the case at bar the witness was a very wise one. He referred to numerous occasions on which parsley seed had been before the board and the protests had always been sustained. I think he was mistaken in that. I refer to Abstract 38267, decided by Judge Waite, the author of the majority opinion in this case. Then he advises the board judicially that paragraph 212 involves duty on seeds for garden purposes, and that paragraph 477 involves the duty on crude drugs and seeds not used for garden purposes.

There is nothing in the evidence or record to differentiate the merchandise from common parsley seed mentioned in paragraph 212. In fact, the witness volunteered the information, "We are not interested in the germinating qualities of the seed," and said he did not know whether this importation would germinate or not, as no test had been made.

Even if the evidence is sufficient to show that the merchandise in this case was used for drug purposes, there is not one word of information as to the general or common use.

The case referred to by my distinguished associate as authority was as weak as the one at bar. There was really no evidence to support the decision and it was directly contrary to the law. Instead of being cited as authority for further errors, it should be reviewed and disapproved.

For a further discussion of what this general appraiser deems to be the law which should govern this and should have governed all previous seed cases before the board, reference is had to the dissenting opinion of Adamson, General Appraiser, in the case of Bush & Co. v United States (T. D. 39569, G. A. 8630).

Happily, Congress has removed all obstacles to harmonious construction by emphasizing its intent. Specific provision is made more specific by the reenactment of the old paragraph 212 in paragraph 762 of the act of 1922, with the following addition:

Provided, That the provisions for seeds in this schedule shall include such seeds whether used for planting or for other purposes.

The protests should be overruled.

(T. D. 39795-G. A, 8683.)

Model-Egg-carton machine.

An egg-carton machine partially completed, capable of use as part of such machine, or capable of a partial use as such machine, is not free of duty as a "model of inventions or other improvements in the arts," under paragraph 551 of the act of 1913, but is dutiable as a manufacture of metal at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 167 of the same act.

United States General Appraisers, New York, September 20, 1923.

In the matter of protest 944445 of C. C. Dickson against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Los Angeles.

[Affirmed.]

Frank L. Lawrence (Martin T. Baldwin of counsel) for the importer.

William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (John G. Lerch, special attorney), for the United States.

Before Board 3 (WAITE, HAY, and ADAMSON, General Appraisers).

WAITE, General Appraiser: The merchandise covered by this importation consists of an article invoiced as "1 crt egg-carton machine partially completed." It was assessed with duty as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 167 of the act of 1913 at 20 per cent ad valorem. The importer claims it is free of duty as a "model of an invention, to be used exclusively as a model and incapable of any other use,' as provided for in paragraph 551 of the act of 1913.

Paragraph 551 reads as follows:

Models of inventions and of other improvements in the arts, to be used exclusively as models and incapable of any other use.

From the testimony introduced by the importer we gather that this machine was intended to take the place of egg-carton machines in use at the time of its importation, the object being to obtain a carton with one operation instead of three operations necessitated by other machines. It appears that this particular machine failed to accomplish the result intended. One witness for the importer stated in the course of the trial:

We didn't expect this machine to turn out a carton, but we expected finally to get. a machine that would. With this we merely meant to try out the theories we had in mind.

It further appears from the testimony that this machine is capable of use as part of an egg-carton machine, or capable of a partial use as an egg-carton machine.

It is plain, in our judgment, that this is not a "model," inasmuch as it is not to be copied. The statement that it was intended to try out some theories the makers had in mind would seem to bring this case directly within the scope of Abstract 26818 (T. D. 31912). In that case a hydraulic motor with pump, used to demonstrate a principle to be afterwards applied and utilized through a different machine, was held not to be a model. The board took occasion to say in that case:

*

*

*

An arrangement of parts used for the purpose of demonstrating a principle which is to be afterwards applied and utilized through a different machine—

was not within the meaning of paragraph 629 of the act of 1909, which was identical in wording with paragraph 551 of the act of 1913.

In Abstract 23411 the board held that a cash register adapted for use with English currency, imported for the purpose of illustrating the method of arrangement and use of the cash register for English currency, but which, as shown by the testimony, might be used otherwise than as a model, was excluded from free entry because it was capable of use otherwise than as a model. See also Abstract 31749 and G. A. 7135 (T. D. 31132).

For the foregoing reasons and upon the authority of the decisions cited, we hold that this importation was properly assessed by the collector as a manufacture of metal. We therefore overrule the protest.

(T. D. 39796.)

Foreign currencies-Rates of exchange.

Rates of exchange certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c), tariff act of 1922.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 29, 1923.

To Collectors of Customs and Others Concerned:

The appended table of the values of certain foreign currencies as certified to the Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under the provisions of section 522 (c) of the tariff act of 1922, during the period from September 20 to September 26, 1923, both inclusive, is published for the information of collectors of customs and others concerned.

(103512.)

MCKENZIE Moss, Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 39797.)

Charges for storekeepers' services at customs bonded warehouses.

Further amendment of article 720 of the Customs Regulations of 1915, as amended by paragraph 83, T. D. 37374 of September 20, 1917.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 28, 1923. SIR: I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 27, 1923(AAW/AN), relative to a bonded warehouse, class 2, at your port, in which you ask that the department advise your office of the proper charges to be made for the services of a storekeeper for the warehouse, in order that the importer may be notified accordingly.

Article 720 of the Customs Regulations of 1915, which was amended by paragraph 83 of T. D. 37374 of September 20, 1917, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

The collector will, when necessary, designate an employee to act as storekeeper of each bonded warehouse or public store. If required, more than one may be designated. The expense of maintaining storekeepers in bonded warehouses of classes2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be at the rate of 75 cents an hour, the total charges for any one day not to exceed the per diem compensation of the officer with a minimum charge of 75 cents for each visit. The amount collectible shall not be less than the pro rata. per diem compensation of the officer; the charge to be made from the time the officer leaves his station and returns thereto..

Synopsis of drawback decisions issued between August 27 and September 27, 1923,inclusive.

(A) Egg production.-Produced by the International Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported dried egg albumen and egg yolk in accordance with the sworn statement of the said firm dated June 7, 1923, and supplemental sworn statement dated August 21, 1923.

Records shall be kept in the manner described in the abovementioned sworn statements showing, in the case of each lot of egg product produced for exportation with benefit of drawback, the lot number and date of production thereof, the quantity of each kind of imported material and the quantity of other material used and the quantity and kind of finished product obtained. A sworn. abstract from such records shall be filed with the drawback entry..