manufactures of paper not specially provided for, but which are claimed by the importers to be properly dutiable at but 15 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 329 of said act as printed matter.

We consider this claim well founded. Some 15 samples of the merchandise were admitted in evidence herein, and from an examination thereof, as well as from the oral testimony introduced herein by the importers, we are satisfied that the articles in the condition in which they are imported can not be classified as tea cartons or tea labels, but are properly classifiable as printed matter, as claimed by the importers.

The only evidence that these articles are ultimately intended to be converted into something other than printed matter, to wit, tea containers and tea labels, is the nature and character of the printing thereon. Without the latter, the articles would consist merely of flat pieces of cardboard, or paper, as the case may be, of different sizes. That some of the sizes may be of the proper dimensions to render the articles capable of being readily converted into tea containers does not necessarily make them so classifiable for tariff purposes. Before they can be used as tea cartons, these pieces of cardboard must be shaped, pasted, and lined with the proper kind of paper, as shown by illustrative exhibits herein.

In Abstract 44926 this board passed upon merchandise similar to that here involved. After holding dutiable as manufactures of paper certain tea cartons which were imported ready for use as such, and which were designated on the invoice as "Princess" cartons, the board said of the remainder of the merchandise there under protest: But we can hardly make a similar finding with regard to the articles represented by the invoice items in which appear the names 'Geisha" and "Peacock." While each of these items covers forms which may be intended to be subsequently made into tea containers, there is nothing about their imported condition, save possibly the printed matter thereon, which would disclose that fact. They are merely pieces of heavy paper or cardboard, each with a tea label printed thereon. They may be cut to the proper size to permit them readily to be made into cartons, but they are not, in their imported condition, "flat" cartons, as described in the report of the appraiser. In fact, the printed matter thereon may be said to be the only indication of their ultimately intended use as tea containers; without such printing they would be merely pieces of cardboard. The printing, therefore, is the controlling feature and must necessarily govern the classification of the article.

That language being equally applicable to the present merchandise, we here follow said ruling and hold the merchandise enumerated on the annexed schedule, which schedule is marked "A" and made part of this decision, to be properly dutiable at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 329 as printed matter, as claimed by the importers. To the extent indicated, that claim in the protests is sustained; but in all other respects, and as to all other merchandise, the protests are overruled.

60469 24--VOL 44- -5

(T. D. 39756-G. A. 8677.)

Currency value-Appraisal.

Statements in error on the summary sheet, and an attempted amendment by the appraiser of such error indicated thereon, are superseded by the appraiser's notation on the invoice showing an appraisal different from that originally placed on the summary sheet.

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 23, 1923.

In the matter of protest 948520 of A. H. Ringk & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

[Affirmed.]

Barnes, Chilvers & Halstead for the importer.

William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Oscar Igstaedter, special attorney), for the United States.

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

WAITE, General Appraiser: The record in this case shows that the invoice was made out in Peiyang dollars, while the entry was in yen. The case arose under the act of 1913. The protest claims that in liquidation the collector assessed duty upon a value in excess of the entered value and also in excess of the appraised value, and that duties should have been assessed upon the entered value which was returned as correct by the appraiser.

We find upon the invoice the unit value to be in Peiyang dollars and a total value of 14,760.10 Peiyang dollars. The entry, however, was made out in yen, showing a total of 14,760.10 yen, from which nondutiable charges were deducted, leaving an amount of 13,354.18 yen, and the importer claims that this is the amount upon which duty should have been taken. The collector assessed duty upon the basis of the Peiyang dollar.

The question to be decided is, What was the appraised value of the goods? The value of the yen and the value of the Peiyang dollar are not the same. At the date of exportation the value of the yen was taken as $0.4985. The value of the Peiyang dollar, as reported by the collector, was $0.7883.

We think the value set down in the entry as being in yen is clearly a mistake. We find on the invoice opposite certain items of charges the red ink notations of the appraiser that he returned certain items therein enumerated as dutiable and certain others as nondutiable. This invoice, as stated above, was made out in Peiyang dollars. The appraiser, however, on the summary sheet noted a value in yen, but without changing the figures. The collector called the attention of the appraiser to this error and the latter attempted to correct it by writing "P. Y. $" in red ink on the summary sheet, still using the figures of the original appraisal. The collector, on the assumption that the appraised value was in Peiyang

dollars, transposed Peiyang dollars into United States money and assessed duty provided by the statute, to wit, 50 per cent.

The claim of the importer is that the appraisal was in yen and that the assessment of duty should have been on the basis of yen instead of Peiyang dollars. The whole case rests upon the question as to what currency the appraisal was made in. The summary sheet clearly shows that an error was made when the word "yen was written thereon. We are of the opinion that the appraiser did not have authority under the law to change the appraisal from Peiyang dollars to yen, or from yen to Peiyang dollars once the appraisal had been made. In our view of the matter, however, the red-ink figures he has made upon the summary sheet simply correct that document to correspond with the appraisal which had been previously made, at the time of his first passing upon the invoice, and when he made his notations thereon. Clearly the summary sheet has no existence until after the appraisal is made. It may or may not be evidence of what the appraisal was. In this case its integrity is so assailed that we do not deem we can give it any standing in determining the question to be determined here, viz, what the appraised value was. In our judgment the appraisal was made by the appraiser on his first review and inspection of the invoice which is clearly expressed in Peiyang dollars. We gather from all the papers in the case that the value set down in the invoice in Peiyang dollars met with his approval, hence no change was noted on the face of the same.

We are advised by the collector that he transposed Peiyang dollars to United States dollars on the basis of the Federal reserve bank rate on the date of shipment, there being no proclaimed rate in that currency for the quarter during which the importation was made.

We therefore find that the appraisal was made in Peiyang dollars, and sustain the action of the collector. The protest is therefore overruled.

(T. D. 39757-G. A. 8678.)

Reappraisement.

1. The operation and execution of paragraph 28 of the act of September 21, 1922, made necessary to the finding of value thereunder, by means of the American selling price and United States value provisions, although an incidental act of classification, is, nevertheless, by the statute made part of the act of appraisement, and as such is reviewable upon reappraisement appeal.

2. Classification proper, on the other hand—that is, the applicability vel non of paragraph 28 to any particular merchandise-remains, as before, reviewable only by protest against the action of the collector on liquidation.

[Affirmed.]

United States General Appraisers, July 25, 1923.

In the matter of reappraisement 13300-A of McKesson & Robbins (Inc.).

James W. Bevans for the importers.

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

BROWN, General Appraiser: In this case as it arises before me, sitting as a single general appraiser, an appeal is taken from the appraisement of this article at the American selling price of a comparable domestic product under paragraph 28 and subsection (f) of section 402 of the act of September 21, 1922.

As I understand the position of the importer's counsel taken at the oral argument, he admits that if the merchandise is properly classified under paragraph 28 the amount of the appraisement on the American selling price of a comparable domestic article is correct, but claims that because the goods are not of coal-tar origin paragraph 28 does not apply, and that the goods should be classified under paragraph 5, which does not involve an appraisement upon the American selling price of a comparable domestic article, but upon the foreign market value or export value of the imported goods themselves. This contention is disputed by the Government.

After careful consideration it is held that this contention raises a question of classification proper of the kind that can only arise before the collector of customs on liquidation, or before the courts upon appeal from his decision thereon, and can not arise upon reappraisement appeal.

It is true that paragraphs 27 and 28 of the act of 1922 do impose upon the local appraiser the duty of making a certain kind of incidental classification in determining whether there exists a comparable domestic American article, and the sales price thereof in the American market, as the basis for the calculation of duty thereunder, i. e., the new basis for duty provided for in said paragraphs 27 and 28.

This action of the local appraiser involving this incidental classification to determine whether the American selling price of a comparable domestic article or the United States value of the imported article itself furnishes the basis for calculating duty is part of the very act of appraisement; ex necessitate is matter of appraisement by the very terms of the act itself, and is consequently reviewable upon reappraisement appeal. Legally performed by the local appraiser or by the board on reappraisement appeal, it is conclusive on liquidation and not reviewable on protest.

But the new act of 1922 does not change classification proper; that is, the determination of what paragraph applies to and covers a particular importation, nor does it make such classification into matter of appraisement. If this were attempted to be determined

upon reappraisement appeal, such determination would have no legal effect. It is not (as are the competitive provisions of pars. 27 and 28) part of the act of appraisement in any proper sense of the word. On the contrary, the new act leaves the ordinary act of classification proper to be still determined by the collector on liquidation from whose decision protest lies in usual course, as always. The so-called advisory report of the local appraiser to the collector as to which paragraph governs still remains purely advisory, as it always was before, although he may start the appraisement machinery going in the direction here taken.

The situation before me is analogous to that where under previous acts (or under this act outside of pars. 27 and 28) the local appraiser had advised classification under a paragraph carrying an ad valorem duty and appraised the goods accordingly, and it was claimed (as could only be done on protest against the liquidation of the collector) that proper classification should be had under another paragraph carrying a specific rate.

In such case appraisement (and review thereof on reappraisement) would nevertheless proceed upon the assumption that the ad valorem paragraph named in the advisory classification was applicable.

Later if on protest the collector (or the courts upon appeal from his decision) held the specific rate paragraph (rather than the ad valorem paragraph) applied, the ad valorem appraisement would become useless and of no effect and the ultimate liquidation would take place under the specific duty paragraph.

Likewise here, if it is held by the collector on liquidation (or by the courts on appeal from his decision) that paragraph 28 does not cover this article, but that it falls say within paragraph 5, then the appraisement now made based upon the American selling price of a comparable domestic American article would not apply, but liquidation would be finally had upon the foreign market value of the imported goods in France, or their export value from the French market, as shown by the invoice. For to apply the American selling price of a comparable article now found for the proper operation of paragraph 28 as a basis of assessing "foreign export value" upon a liquidation under paragraph 5 would produce a manifest absurdity and be directly in the teeth of the statute.

This strikingly illustrates that paragraphs 27 and 28, in their American selling-price provisions, not only provide for a different method of finding dutiable value from the ad valorem sections of the act, but the value so found under said paragraphs 27 and 28 differs in toto and in substance from what has been hitherto known as ad valorem duty; that is, duty based upon the value of the imported goods themselves. (Note what was said in the case of azoflavine, reappraisement 13019-A; G. A. 8668, T. D. 39733.)