so-called blankets used in connection with machinery, but only blankets used for bodily protection—that is, to keep out the cold.

That decision is in harmony with the conclusion arrived at in this case.

The protests are therefore overruled as to said merchandise.

Prótest 776910 also claims 5 per cent discount under section 4, paragraph J, subsection 7, but no evidence was introduced in support of this claim, and it is also overruled.

No. 39970.-Protests 752037, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston).

CLEARER CLOTH-FLANNELS.-Slasher flannel and clearer cloth classified as wool cloth at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 288, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable as flannels at 25 per cent under paragraph 289.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. The slasher flannel is used in cotton mills on slasher machines, and the clearer cloth on spinning machinery to catch the loose fibers and clear them away from the yarns during the spinning process. The fabrics in question were found not to come within the meaning of the term "flannels." It was held that it is probable that Congress in enacting the flannel provision did not have in mind fabrics which, although of flannel texture, have no relation to clothing, but are used entirely in connection with machinery. The classification as wool cloth under paragraph 288 was affirmed.

No. 39971.-Protest 797267 of Harris & Schulgasser (New York).

ALPACA COAT LININGS.-Alpaca coat linings classified as cloth in chief value of the hair of the alpaca at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 308, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 288 or 290 as wool cloth or wool coat linings.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7741 (T. D. 35541), affirmed in Rosenberg v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 36510), the protest was overruled.

No. 39972.-Protest 796184 of Sylvester & Levy (New York).

WOOL CLOTH.-Merchandise classified as cloth in chief value of wool at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 288 is claimed to be cloth in chief value of cattle hair, dutiable at 25 per cent under the same paragraph.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. Protest unsupported; overruled.

No. 39973.-Protest 778710-56298 of R. B. Boak & Co. (Chicago).

FISH, BONED.-Herrings with the head and tail cut off and the side of the fish trimmed off, with all the bones taken out; and fish with the head and tail cut off, split, and the backbone removed, the side or rib bones remaining in the fish, classified as fish, skinned or boned, at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 216, tariff act of 1913, are claimed free of duty as fish not specially provided for under paragraph 483

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. The herrings with all the bones taken out and trimmed were held properly classified as fish, skinned or boned, under paragraph 216. The fish with the head and tail cut off, split, and the backbone removed, the side or rib bones remaining in the fish, was found not to be fish, boned, and was held free of duty under paragraph 483, as claimed. Woodward v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 372; T. D. 35918) followed.

No. 39974.-Protest 796698-58434 of P. V. Bright Co. (Chicago).

FISH, BONED.-Salmon classified as boned at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 216, tariff act of 1913, was claimed free of duty under paragraph 483. Opinion by BROWN, G. A. On the authority of Woodward v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 372; T. D. 35918) the salmon in question was found not boned within the meaning of paragraph 216 and held free of duty under paragraph 483.

No. 39975.-Protests 778580, etc., of Tokstad-Burger Co. (San Francisco).

FISH IN TINS.-Merchandise classified as fish in tins at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 216, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable under the provision in the same paragraph for fish, skinned or boned.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. On the authority of Tokstad-Burger Co. v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 441; T. D. 35981), affirming G. A. 7720 (T. D. 35365), the provision for fish in tins was held to control over that for fish, skinned or boned. Protests overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JULY 7, 1916.

No. 39976.-Protest 780822 of Innis, Speiden & Co. (New York).

DEXTRIN-BRITISH GUM.

MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: The appraiser in his special report on the protest in this case states that "the merchandise consists of dextrin, which, according to the chemist's report, is derived from potato starch." Duty was assessed on the merchandise at 11 cents per pound under paragraph 36 of the tariff act of 1913, and the protest claim is that duty should have been assessed at only three-fourths of 1 cent per pound under the last clause of the same paragraph.

The only witness called for the importers, a woman in charge of the particular department of the importing firm which handles this and kindred kinds of merchandise, with extended experience and unusual comprehension of the various kinds of dextrins and other materials adapted to similar uses, is decided in her opinion that the merchandise represented by Exhibit 1 (the official sample) is not dextrin, but an article known as "leiogomme," similar in all material respects to British gum, except as to color, and that it is in fact bought and sold as British gum; that neither leiogomme nor British gum can be used for the purposes for which dextrins are used in the textile industry. Another distinction which this witness makes, which is not contradicted, is that dextrins when dissolved are adhesive, while the merchandise under consideration is not adhesive.

But one kind of dextrin is provided for in paragraph 36, supra, namely, "dextrin, made from potato starch or potato flour," so that therefore, unless the article under consideration is dextrin made from either potato starch or potato flour, it was not properly classified by the collector. The provision in the paragraph which follows, and the one under which claim is made, reads: "Dextrin, not otherwise provided for, burnt starch or British gum, dextrin substitutes, and soluble or chemically treated starch, three-fourths of 1 cent per pound."

The Government evidently relies upon the report of the chemist and the testimony of the chemist who made the analysis. In his report (Exhibit 2) that officer states that the merchandise is derived from potato starch and is composed mainly of dextrin. An article which is a derivative of a substance may be very different from another article which is made of that substance, and there is no apparent explanation of the chemist's statement that this so-called leiogomme is composed mainly of dextrin. It would seem as though the article is a mixture no longer recognized as dextrin.

We think on the record as it stands that the collector's classification of this artici as being made from potato starch or potato flour is erroneous, and that it should have been classified under the last clause of paragraph 36 and assessed with duty at threefourths of 1 cent per pound, as claimed.

The decision of the collector is reversed accordingly.

No. 39977.-Protest 771622 of Otto Gerdau Co. (New York).

WHIP REEDS. Rattan reeds classified as chair reeds at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 173, tariff act of 1913, are claimed entitled to free entry under paragraph 648.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. The reeds in question found to be 14 millimeters in diameter were held free of duty as whip reeds under paragraph 648, as claimed.

No. 39978.-Protests 761652, etc., of Lamont, Corliss & Co. et al. (New York). POWDERED TALC.-Powdered talc scented or perfumed, classified as a toilet preparation at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 48, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as talcum powder at 15 per cent under paragraph 69.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. On the authority of Roger v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., ; T. D. 36424), affirming G. A. 7800 (T. D. 35844), the powdered tale in question was held properly classified as a toliet preparation under paragraph 48. No. 39979.-Protest 803232 of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

TILES.-The appraiser reports the merchandise in question to be red ferrolite flooring tiles. They were classified at 5 cents per square foot under paragraph 72, tariff act of 1913, and are claimed dutiable at 14 cents per square foot under another provision of the same paragraph.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. Protest unsupported; overruled.

No. 39980.-Protests 799142, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (New York, etc.).

WOOD SHAVING ROPINGS-CHIP.-These protests relate to wood shaving ropings composed of chip attached to cotton threads, classified as a manufacture of chip at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Kronfeld (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 36425) the wood shaving ropings were held properly classified under paragraph 368.

No. 39981.-Protests 797972, etc., of D. J. Hanscom et al. (Seattle).

GRASS FURNITURE.-Furniture classified as manufactures of grass at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as furniture of wood at 15 per cent under paragraph 176.

Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. On the authority of Abstract 39130 the furniture in question was held dutiable under paragraph 176, as claimed.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JULY 7, 1916.

No. 39982.-Protest 802665 of W. E. Huguenin and protest 800667 of Manasseh Levy & Co. (New York).

TIMERS. The appraiser reports the merchandise to be watches which record the time of day and also contain mechanism and dial for timing speed contests, etc. They were classified as watches at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 161, tariff act of 1913, and are claimed dutiable as manufactures of metal at 20 per cent under paragraph 167.

Opinions by FISCHER, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. G. A. 7730 (T. D. 35460) cited.

No. 39983.-Protests 801601, etc., of A. Wittnauer Co. et al. (New York).

TIMERS.-Stop watches designed for timing horse races and other speed contests, etc., classified as watches at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 161, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable as manufactures of metal at 20 per cent under paragraph 167. Opinion by FISCHER, G. A. On the report of the appraiser certain of the stop watches in question were held dutiable under paragraph 167, as claimed. G. A. 7827 (T. D. 35971) and G. A. 7730 (T. D. 35460) followed.

No. 39984.-Protest 802760 of Hipp, Didisheim & Bro. (New York).

PROTEST WITHOUT MERIT.—It is claimed here that certain timers classified at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 161, tariff act of 1913, are dutiable at 20 per cent under paragraph 167.

Opinion by FISCHER, G. A. From the record it appears that no timers were classified at 30 per cent. Protest without merit; overruled.

No. 39985.-Protest 801606 of Markt & Hammacher Co. (New York).

HOLLOW WARE.-Merchandise classified as enameled steel hollow ware at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 134, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as manufactures of steel at 20 per cent under paragraph 167.

Opinion by FISCHER, G. A. Pot covers and ladles of steel enameled with vitreous glasses were held dutiable under paragraph 167, as claimed. Abstract 38060 followed. Protest sustained in part.

No. 39986.-Protests 763477, etc., of Dreicer & Co. (New York).

SILK HAND BAGS.-These protests relate to fancy hand bags of silk in part of ornaments, classified at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. Opinion by HoWELL, G. A. On the authority of Abstract 37624, affirmed in Morimura v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 475; T. D. 36119), the hand bags in question were held properly classified under paragraph 358.

(T. D. 36559.)

Tomato products.

Conditions under which the Secretary of Agriculture will recommend exclusion of shipments of tomato products.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 11, 1916.

To collectors and other officers of the customs:

Herewith is published for your information and guidance a copy of a letter received from the Secretary of Agriculture relative to the adulteration of tomato products:

This department has been asked to inform importers regarding the tests which it applies in determining whether tomato products are adulterated within the meaning of the Federal food and drugs act, and therefore liable to be refused admission under the provisions of section 2 of the act.

The Bureau of Chemistry of this department has instructed the chiefs of its inspection districts to notify importers that the Department of Agriculture will recommend the exclusion from this country of all shipments of tomato products offered for entry on and after September 1, 1916, if the tomato products, upon examination under the conditions prescribed in Bureau of Chemistry circular 68, are found to contain yeasts and spores, or bacteria, or mold filaments in excess of the following limits: Yeasts and spores per 1/60 cubic millimeter, 125; bacteria per cubic centimeter, 100,000,000; mold filaments in 66 per cent of the microscopic fields; and, further, to give notice that the department is considering the fixing of lower limits for concentrated tomato products which will be published when determined upon.

This department suggests that this information may become more widely known among importers if it be published in the Treasury Decisions and also posted in conspicuous places in customhouses where tomato products are ordinarily offered for entry.

(95500.)

WM. P. MALBURN, Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 36560.)

Drawback on ribbons, trimmings, and braid.

Drawback on ribbons, trimmings, and braid manufactured by C. E. Hertlein, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported yarn, tinsel thread, and lahn.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 11, 1916.

SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under paragraph O of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and the drawback regulations (chapter 18 of the Customs Regulations of 1915) on ribbons, trimmings, and braid manufactured by C. E. Hertlein, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported artificial silk yarn, tinsel thread, and lahn.

A manufacturing record shall be kept, which will show, in the case of each lot of articles manufactured for exportation with benefit of drawback, the lot number and date of manufacture thereof, the quantity (length, width, and weight), and the kind of article produced; the quantity, value, and identity of each kind of imported material used in the manufacture thereof; the quantity of domestic material used, if any, and the quantity of imported material of each kind appearing in the finished product. A sworn abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with the drawback entry.

The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported material appearing in the exported articles, as shown by the abstract from the manufacturing record.

The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated June 20, 1916, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

Drawback may be allowed under these regulations on articles exported on and after May 4, 1916.

Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Gregory & Read Co., of Lynn, Mass., with the use of shoe topping produced for the account of the Seamans & Cobb Co., of Boston, Mass., by the manufacturers designated in T. D. 36449 of June 3, 1916.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 11, 1916.

SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under paragraph O of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and the drawback regulations (chapter 18 of the Customs Regulations of 1915) on shoes manufactured by the Gregory & Read Co., of Lynn, Mass., with the use of