In view of these established facts, it merely remains to be here determined which of the two enumerated paragraphs more specifically provides for the merchandise. We are of opinion that the more specific provision is that in paragraph 339 for "hollow or flat ware." That provision was construed in G. A. 9072 (T. D. 41269) in its application to aluminum hollow ware. We there pointed out that the first provision was predicated solely upon use, merely requiring that the article be shown to be a utensil which is used on the table, or in a household, kitchen, or hospital. Of the hollow-ware provision, we said: * The second covers all hollow ware or flat ware made of aluminum, without qualification or restriction as to use. As to such hollow ware, the provision is all-comprehensive, embracing, for instance, such aluminum ware as may be used in hotels, in chemical laboratories, on steamships, in factories, or wherever used. And we stated that such "conclusion is inevitable in view of the elimination from the present law of the word 'similar' found in the corresponding provisions of the acts of 1909 and 1913," and due to such change in the present law we held all previous decisions under prior acts to be inapplicable to the aluminum hollow ware there in question or to the present tariff provision therefor. Paragraph 134 of the act of 1913 read: Table, kitchen, and hospital utensils, or other similar hollow ware composed of iron or steel, enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses; table, kitchen, and hospital utensils, or other similar hollow ware composed wholly or in chief value of aluminum; all the foregoing not especially provided for in this section, 25 per centum ad valorem. Paragraph 339 of the present law reads: Table, household, kitchen, and hospital utensils, and hollow or flat ware not specially provided for; composed of iron or steel and enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, 5 cents per pound and 30 per centum ad valorem; composed wholly or in chief value of aluminum, 11 cents per pound and 55 per cent ad valorem; composed wholly or in chief value of copper, brass, steel, or other base metal, not specially provided for, 40 per centum ad valorem; and in addition thereto, upon any of the foregoing articles containing electrical heating elements as constituent parts thereof, 10 per centum ad valorem. Paragraph 158 of the act of 1909 read: Table, kitchen, and hospital utensils, or other similar hollow ware, of iron or steel, enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, but not ornamented or decorated with lithographic or other printing, forty per centum ad valorem. And paragraph 149 of the latter act provided for: Cast hollow ware coated, glazed, or tinned, one and one-half cents per pound. It will be seen that the changes which have been made in the present law are very substantial and that the scope of the paragraph has 5158-27†-vOL 50—37 been considerably broadened, thus indicating that the legislation has received particular attention at the hands of the lawmakers. As we read the provision here under consideration, it covers all articles of hollow ware composed in chief value of base metal, which precisely describes the present merchandise. Now, if Congress intended to exclude from said provision such ware as may be silver or gold plated, it is fair to assume that that purpose would have been made manifest by appropriate language, and thus would follow the usual congressional procedure adopted in other paragraphs of the metal schedule. For example, paragraph 345 covers saddlery and harness of base metal "not plated with gold or silver." Paragraph 348 makes provision for "snap fasteners * of whatever material composed, not plated with gold, silver, or platinum." Paragraph 350 provides for "pins not plated with gold or silver, and not commonly known as jewelry." Paragraph 352 covers "mechanical pencils made of base metal and not plated with gold, silver, or platinum"; and paragraph 360 provides for "philosophical, scientific, and laboratory instruments * * composed wholly or in chief value of metal, and not plated with gold, silver, or platinum." In view of this consistent policy, we regard as applicable to the interpretation of the present paragraph 339 the rule referred to by Mr. Justice Brewer in Arnold v. United States (147 U. S. 494, 499) wherein he said: * In Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheat. 419, 438), Chief Justice Marshall recognized as "a rule of interpretation, to which all assent, that the exception of a particular thing from general words proves that, in the opinion of the lawgiver, the thing excepted would be within the general clause had the exception not been made." According to that rule the various paragraphs mentioned would have included the plated articles were they not specifically excepted. Conversely, the absence from paragraph 339 of any language which would exclude hollow ware composed in chief value of base metal and plated with silver indicates a congressional purpose to cover such ware. It is likewise significant that the general provision for plated ware is contained in the residuary or catch-all paragraph of the metal schedule. We therefore hold the plated hollow ware in question to be dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 339, as alleged by plaintiff. That claim in the protest is therefore sustained and judgment order will issue accordingly. (T. D. 41920) Bar Harbor chairs Appeal directed from the decision of the United States Customs Court (Abstract 1074), involving the classification of certain willow chairs known as Bar Harbor chairs TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 31, 1926. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, inviting attention to the decision of the United States Customs Court (Abstract 1074), in which it held that certain willow chairs known as Bar Harbor chairs which had been assessed with duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 407 of the tariff act of 1922 were properly dutiable at the rate of 33% per cent ad valorem under paragraph 410 of said act. In accordance with your recommendation you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the said decision in conformity with section 198 of "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," approved March 3, 1911. Respectfully, L. C. ANDREWS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. (T. D. 41921) Down powder puffs Down powder puffs dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1419, tariff act of 1922 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 29, 1926. SIR: The department refers to your letter of the 22d ultimo requesting to be advised as to the proper classification of powder puffs in chief value of down, invoiced variously as down puffs and eider-down puffs. The question of the proper classification of this merchandise has been before the department for consideration and decision a number of times, and in a letter addressed to the comptroller of customs at Chicago, under date of August 4, 1926, the department invited. attention to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 13351) holding that certain swan's-down powder puffs were properly dutiable as brushes, and so far as the records of the department show the classification under the said decision has prevailed uninterruptedly for more than 50 years, and owing to the long-continued practice the department in the letter referred to expressed the opinion that it would not be expedient to issue instructions changing the practice. However, after a further consideration of the question and being satisfied that the merchandise falls directly within the provision in paragraph 1419 of the tariff act of 1922 for articles not specially provided for, composed in chief value of feathers, flowers, leaves, and all other material enumerated in paragraph 1419 dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, the department feels constrained to recede from the position taken in its letter to the comptroller of customs at Chicago, above referred to, and you are accordingly directed to assess duty upon powder puffs of the character described imported or withdrawn from customs custody after 30 days from the date of the publication of this letter in the weekly TREASURY DeciSIONS at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 1419 of the tariff act. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (T. D. 41922) Common carrier L. C. ANDREWS, Discontinuance of common carrier's bond of the United American Lines (Inc.), New York, N. Y., approval of which was published in T. D. 38598 of January 18, 1921 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 31, 1926. SIR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 27th instant transmitting the application of the United American Lines (Inc.) for the discontinuance of their common carrier's bond dated December 28, 1920, the approval of which was published in T. D. 38598 of January 18, 1921. As it appears from the application that none of the vessels of the said company now carry imported in bond merchandise and as the company does not anticipate carrying such merchandise in the future, the application is approved under the provisions of article 789 of the Customs Regulations of 1923. The bond should be marked "discontinued" without cancellation and retained on file in your office to meet any liability which may have accrued thereunder. The inclosure of your letter is returned for filing with the discontinued bond. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. L. C. ANDREWS, Assistant Secretary. (T. D. 41923) Schedule for hearings by the United States Customs Court Schedule for hearings of cases by the United States Customs Court at ports other than the port of New York for the calendar year 1927 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 29, 1926. To Officers of the Customs and Others Concerned: The appended schedule of hearings by the United States Customs Court is published for your information. (67346.) L. C. ANDREWS, Assistant Secretary. Schedule for the hearing of tariff cases by justices of the United States Customs Court at ports other than New York for the year 1927 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT, 641 Washington Street, New York, December 21, 1926. Pursuant to the provisions of section 518, tariff act of 1922, the following schedule has been prepared for the hearing by justices of the United States Customs Court of tariff cases at ports other than New York, and is hereby promulgated: Port Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. |