upon the subject marshalled and reviewed. It was there held that the phrase "used only for manure" embraced within its meaning substances used in the manufacture of fertilizer and that the word "manure," as used in that paragraph of the law, was synonymous with "fertilizer." It was also held that the word "substances" as used in the act had a general rather than a special application and applied generally to the commodities of the kind described and not alone to the particular shipment which was the subject of protest.

The testimony shows that the commodity in question was ground to a fine powder by machinery from small pieces or chips of limestone that had been accumulating for 30 or more years near the limekilns of the exporting company. The commodity therefore is a by-product of the industry of manufacturing lime, which has been reduced to a powder, and the testimony shows that the purpose of so reducing it is to sell to the farmers.

So far as the testimony in this case discloses the sole and only use for the ground limestone which was imported here is as a fertilizer or plant food; that it is distributed over the soil together with other substances for the purpose of nourishing the soil, giving to the plants the chemical substance which they require and generally increasing the crop yield. The testimony shows that a like commodity is manufactured in the United States for the same purpose and sold and used in the same way. So far as the record discloses the commodity in question is not only not "commonly, practically, and profitably used" for purposes other than manure, but so far as can be ascertained from the record before us, there is no other use to which either the imported or the domestic-made commodity is put. See J. P. Hawes's case, Abstract 26390 (T. D. 31832).

The protests are therefore sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entries admitting the merchandise free of duty under paragraph 499.

Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.

Board 1-McClelland, Sullivan, and Brown. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board 3-Waite, and Hay.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JULY 17, 1916.

No. 40002.-Protest 767263 of R. H. Macy & Co. (New York).

BEADED ARTICLES-SUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST.-Merchandise classified as silk or cotton net trimmings or ornaments, appliquéd, at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as beaded articles at 50 per cent under paragraph 333.

Opinion by HOWELL, G. A. Protest containing reasonable alternative claims held not to be invalid as multifarious. So-called sashes, gimps, buckles, tunics, ornaments, garnitures or fringes, dress trimmings or ornaments, composed of a silk net or cotton net foundation appliquéd with beads, were held properly classified under paragraph 358.

No. 40003.-Protests 768668, etc., of Morimura Bros. (New York and Seattle). CANDY BOXES.-Candy boxes and hatchets classified as silk chief value at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1913, are claimed to be composed chiefly of paper or cotton and properly dutiable under various paragraphs.

Opinion by HOWELL, G. A. From the analyses it was found that silk is the component of chief value. The boxes in question were held properly classified under paragraph 318.

No. 40004.-Protest 770251 of Lines & Warne (New York).

FLANNELS KNITTED SILK MUFFLERS.-Merchandise classified as wool cloth or wool dress goods at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 288 or 290, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as flannels under paragraph 289. Knitted silk mufflers, fringed, classified as silk wearing apparel at 50 per cent under paragraph 317, are claimed dutiable at 40 per cent under paragraph 315.

Opinion by HOWELL, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7772 (T. D. 35703) the flannels in question were held dutiable under paragraph 289. The knitted silk mufflers were held dutiable under paragraph 315. United States v. Lines (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 552; T. D. 35193) followed.

No. 40005.-Protest 778441 of M. J. Corbett & Co. (New York).

BEADED SCARFS.-Scarfs classified as appliquéd wearing apparel are claimed dutiable as articles composed in chief value of beads at 50 per cent under paragraph 533.

Opinion by HOWELL, G. A. It was found that the articles in question are not appliquéd. They were held dutiable as articles composed in chief value of beads under paragraph 333. Loewenthal v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 209; T. D. 35464) followed.

No. 40006.-Protests 793040, etc., of Bronston Bros. & Co. et al. (New York).
STRAW HATS, NOT BLOCKED.

HOWELL, General Appraiser: The articles in question consist of untrimmed straw hats. They were returned by the appraiser as being blocked, and were assessed for duty by the collector at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 335, tariff act of 1913. The importers claim that the hats have not been blocked, and that they are properly dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under said paragraph 335. The pertinent provisions of paragraph 335 read as follows:

* * *

or

Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of straw, manila hemp, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not blocked or trimmed, 25 per centum ad valorem; if blocked or trimmed, and in chief value of such materials, 40 per centum ad valorem.

On the trial of the case the importers had admitted in evidence two sample hats which were taken from the importations in question. These hats are made from what appears to be Tuscan straw; have high crowns and wide brims, and in their condition as imported the hats are so limp and pliable that they do not retain any particular shape. The examiner who made the advisory classification of these hats at the time they were before him for appraisement, and who was the only witness called in the case, testified that they were not blocked hats; that although they were made over a block to give the necessary size to the crowns, the hats had to be put through a further process of blocking in order to give them size and shape, and to make them ready and suitable for the application of the trimming.

One of the definitions of the verb block, as given in Webster's Dictionary, is "to shape on, or stamp with, a block; as, to block a hat."

From this definition it will be readily understood that the purpose of blocking a hat is to give it form and shape, and to make it ready and complete for the trimming which may be applied thereto. As already stated, the hats in question are lacking in stiffness, and are so pliable that when handled they fail to retain any particular shape. In their condition as imported the hats are without definite form and shape, and are not suitable to be trimmed and worn as hats without further manipulation to give them form, shape, and style.

We think the record and the form and condition of the hats as imported impel us to conclude that the hats are not blocked.

The protests are accordingly sustained.

No. 40007.-Protest 793943 of A. V. Heyliger (New York).

SILK VELVET RIBBONS.-Velvet ribbons classified as composed in chief value of silk at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 314, tariff act of 1913, are claimed to be chiefly of cotton, dutiable at 40 per cent under paragraph 257.

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

BEFORE BOARD 3, JULY 17, 1916.

No. 40008.-Protest 798920 of Alfred Richter (New York).
COMMISSIONS-LEGALITY OF LIQUIDATION.

HAY, General Appraiser: This is a protest against the liquidation of an entry by the collector, the protestant claiming that he erred in "treating a certain commission charged at the foot of the invoice as part of the dutiable value of the merchandise," and further claiming that said commission is no part of the dutiable value of the merchandise. The case is submitted upon the record as forwarded by the collector and a stipulation made and entered into between the attorney for the importer and the Assistant Attorney General. This stipulation reads as follows:

It is hereby stipulated that the testimony of the importer, if admitted in the record, would show

That the item of commission on the invoice herein is strictly and truly a commission paid by the purchasers to Messrs. Reuter, Brockelmann & Co., of Tientsin, China, for acting as purchasing agents in behalf of said purchasers; that said item in no way relates to or forms part of any profit made by the sale of the merchandise in the Tientsin market; that said merchandise was bought from Chen Shao Lang, of Tientsin; and that the whole price paid therefor to the seller and the attendant charges and shipping charges are correctly set forth in the corrected consular invoice hereto annexed; that the annexed corrected consular invoice, certified August. 24, 1915, relates to the shipment which is the subject of this protest; and that the A. Emanuel declaring as agent of the purchaser on the said invoice is a member of the firm of Reuter, Brockelmann & Co.

It is further stipulated that Messrs. Reuter, Brockelmann & Co. are the persons claiming and entitled to the commission in question, having acted as purchasing agents for a firm in Hamburg, Germany, and that the goods were ordered by and delivered to that firm and neither for nor to the importer who entered them at this port, who received them only as bailee for the purpose of transshipment to the purchasers in Hamburg; and that the goods have been exported accordingly, as the collector's indorsement on the protest shows.

It is further stipulated that the price and other items stated in the said corrected invoice state the correct market value of the importation and correctly state charges and shipping charges, all at the date of shipment. That the appraiser, in acting upon the invoice, disallowed the said commissions because the original consular invoice now with the entry incorrectly described Messrs. Reuter, Brockelmann & Co. as owners (or sellers), whereas in this corrected invoice, hereto annexed, they are correctly described as agents of the purchasers; and that the said corrected invoice is properly in the form of a consigned invoice and not in the form of a purchase invoice.

In making this stipulation the Government reserves its objection to the competency of all the matters hereinbefore set forth, on the ground that the importer has obtained a reappraisement of this merchandise (No. 82142) wherein the general appraiser has affirmed the appraised value of the merchandise, and that that proceeding, not having been appealed from, and the action therein taken not being assailed in this protest, has become final and conclusive; further that the protest is defective in that it sets forth as follows:

"It (the commission in question) is paid to the importer by the seller for services rendered in disposing of the merchandise at this port and is not in any way a part of the foreign market value or the dutiable value of the shipment."

Which is not the fact.

As we understand the facts as stipulated by the parties litigant, the commission which it is claimed the collector included as part of the dutiable value was a commission paid by the purchaser and not the seller of the goods, the commissionaire being his agent and not the agent of the seller; hence this commission forms no part of the purchase price and, if the purchase price is the dutiable value, no part of the dutiable value of the merchandise. It is claimed, however, on the part of the Government, that the collector took duty upon the merchandise as appraised by the appraiser and reappraised by the general appraiser. We have, as part of the record in the case, the invoice upon which the appraiser's action is noted and the reappraisement sheet or return of the general appraiser. The return of the general appraiser is brief and simply states that the appraised value is affirmed. Whatever, therefore, is the appraised value of the merchandise is that upon which the collector should have collected duty, unless there were some costs or charges which it was his duty to add. The appraiser has marked on the invoice in red ink opposite a number of items the letter "D," indicating that in his judgment the items therein are dutiable. As a matter of strict law, there is no such thing as a dutiable item. The merchandise, and the merchandise alone, is dutiable, but whatever items go to make up the dutiable value should be included in the value of the merchandise. There is on the margin of the invoice a memorandum in red ink, apparently made by and also apparently signed by the appraiser, which reads as follows: "Deductions of items marked 'X,' disallowed as noted to make market value." This, while not very explicit, we understand to be the appraisement of the merchandise; that is, the items which the appraiser had marked "X" upon the invoice should be added back to the per se value of the merchandise in order to make market value. These items are washing, coolie hire, naphthalene, assorting, handshaking, and disinfecting. These are the only items that are marked with the "X." They, as well as some other items, are marked with the "D" also. The item of commission which bears the mark "D" is not marked with the "X," hence it does not come within the purview of the appraiser's action. We take it that the letter "D" opposite the word "commission" is simpy advice given to the collector and forms no part of the appraisal. The amount of the commission was therefore not added by the appraiser to make up the market value of the merchandise, hence is not embraced within the finding of the general appraiser, and, it appearing from the record that the commission in question was one paid by the purchaser and not the seller of the merchandise, we think the protest must be sustained. The protest is sustained and the collector will reliquidate the entry omitting from the dutiable value of the merchandise the item of commission.

No. 40009.-Protest 740239 of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Orange Boxes.-This protest relates to orange boxes tied in packages of two or more boxes each, classified under paragraph 220, tariff act of 1913, the question being, What is a package?

Opinion by HAY, G. A. Bush v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 401; T. D. 35974), reversing Abstract 37295, followed as to packages of orange boxes. Protest sustained.

Abs. 40010-15]

No. 40010.-Protest 798959 of L. E. Doudiet & Co. (St. Paul).

TEA COVERINGS.-Certain containers of tea are claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 627, tariff act of 1913.

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

No. 40011.-Protest 800706-51912 of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Chicago).

CLERICAL ERROR.-It is claimed here that certain items of commission were included by the importer in the entered value through clerical error.

Opinion by HAY, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Nozaki (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286; T. D. 34471), reversing Abstract 33927 (T. D. 33816), protest overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JULY 19, 1916.

No. 40012.-Protest 772802 of T. D. Downing & Co. (New York).
COAL-TAR PREPARATIONS-METALLIC SALTS.

MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: The merchandise involved was returned by the appraiser as a coal-tar preparation and assessed with duty at 15 per cent under paragraph 21 of the tariff act of 1913. The grounds of objection to such classification.are set forth in the protest as follows:

Our contention is that this commodity is entitled to entry free of duty, under paragraph 452 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, as "tar oil, or products of coal tar," known as "anthracene and anthracene oil," and is not dutiable under paragraph 21 of the tariff act as found by you.

When the case was called for hearing it was submitted for decision on the official record and sample. There does not appear to be any sample of the merchandise, but among the papers constituting the record are two reports of analyses made in the laboratory of the United States appraiser's office at the port of New York. These reports are substantially alike. The purpose of the analyses seems to have been to determine the distillation point and whether metallic salts were present in the sample. One of the reports shows that 8 per cent distilled over between 200 and 300 degrees Centigrade; 10 between 300 and 320 degrees with a residue of 82 per cent, and that zinc salts were found to be present.

This showing, coupled with the fact that the importers failed to offer any evidence in support of their protest, warrants the conclusion that the classification by the collector was correctly made.

The protest is overruled in all respects.

No. 40013.-Protest 748537 of Hirshbach & Smith (New York).

MOHAIR DRESS GOODS.-Dress goods classified as cloth in chief value of the hair of the Angora goat at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 308, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as dress goods at 35 per cent under paragraph 290.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. On the authority of Rosenberg v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., ; T. D. 36510) the dress goods in question was held properly classified under paragraph 308.

No. 40014.-Protest 776470 of Stern, Katzenstein & Stern (New York).

MOHAIR LININGS.-Linings or dress goods classified as mohair chief value at 40 per cent ad valorem under pargraph 308, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable as coat linings or dress goods in chief value of wool at 35 per cent under paragraph 290. Opinion by BROWN, G. A. The evidence submitted was held insufficient to establish the claim. Protest overruled. Rosenberg v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 36510) cited.

No. 40015.-Protest 768202 of Britt, Loeffler & Weil (New York).

MALT FOODS.-Malt foods put up in packages of less than 2 pounds gross weight, classified as a medicinal compound under paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles at 15 per cent under paragraph 385.