Merchandise similar to that involved in Abstract 31589, supra, was the subject of Abstract 31545 (T. D. 33263) and Abstract 34182 (T. D. 33963). In each of these decisions the board found the merchandise to be ethyl chloride showing only traces of essential oil, and sustained the claim for duty at 30 per cent ad valorem. Protest 688005 was the subject of Abstract 34182, supra. This decision was appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals and there the board's decision was reversed on the ground that "the board erred in considering the records, which had not been properly received in evidence" (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 34526), and the case was remanded to the board for a new trial. On the trial of this case the examiner of perfumery in the appraiser's office at the port of New York was called on behalf of the Government and testified: Q. Have you opened any of these tubes and familiarized yourself with its contents, the character of its contents?-A. Similar goods, yes. Q. What was the character of it?-A. Extremely volatile solvent with added odor of some kind. * * * * * Q. How long would you say the odor would remain?-A. I don't know, sir; I have never tested it for that. Q. Would it endure like ordinary perfume?-A. No; because there is no apparent fixative in here at all. It is not made as perfumery is made, with a fixative to hold the odor down. Q. On removing the cap from one of these bottles the article begins to spray?—A. Yes, sir. Q. It evaporates very quickly?—A. Yes, sir. Q. It produces a cold and disagreeable sensation? A. Yes. Q. Perfume, on the other hand, does not spray?-A. Not of its own will. It is often sprayed. It thus appears that the merchandise in question is similar in all respects to that heretofore passed upon by the board and held to be ethyl chloride and there is nothing in the record now before us to lead to a different conclusion from that heretofore reached as to the proper classification of the merchandise. The importation covered by protest 733361 was made and duty assessed thereon during the life of the tariff act of 1909. That protest correctly describes the merchandise, but it makes claim for a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 29 of the act of 1913. The court held in Shaw v. United States (122 Fed., 443) that such an error did not render a protest fatally defective, and in harmony with that ruling we hold this protest to be sufficiently specific to comply with the statute. We find from the record that the merchandise under consideration consists of ethyl chloride and hold such of it as was imported during the life of the tariff act of 1909 to be dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 21 of that act, and that which was imported under the tariff act of 1913 to be dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 29. These claims are therefore sustained, the protests being overruled in all other respects. The decisions of the collector are modified accordingly. (T. D. 35027.) Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. Board 1-McClelland, Sullivan, and Brown. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board 3-Waite, Somerville, and Hay. BEFORE BOARD 1, DECEMBER 23, 1914. No. 37096.-IMITATION CORAL.—Protest 625649 of Albert Lorsch & Co. (New York). SULLIVAN, General Appraiser: This protest is against the collector's classification of certain merchandise as manufactures of metal and paste at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraphs 109 and 199 of the tariff act of 1909, claiming the same dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem as imitation precious stones for use in the manufacture of jewelry under paragraph 449 of the same act. Other claims are made in the protest, but that seems to be the one relied on. At the trial the importers offered no evidence in support of their protest, merely submitting it on the appraiser's report and collector's letter. * * * * The official sample of the merchandise consists of a pink pear-shaped article resembling coral, about five-eighths inch long by three-eighths inch in diameter, into the small end of which is inserted a short piece of brass wire. In the matter of protests 182824, etc., of Alexander Murphy & Co. et al. (G. A. 6584; T. D. 28131) the board had before it for classification real coral, and held all coral suitable for use in the construction of jewelry dutiable as precious stones not set at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 435 of the tariff act of 1897. In that case the board followed its previous holding that coral of the expensive kind susceptible of taking a high polish and usually cut by a lapidary was, in both its natural and imported condition, classified in trade and known commercially as a precious stone. See, in the matter of protest 198621 of Garreaud & Griser, G. A. 6482 (T. D. 27726). We therefore hold that the merchandise in question is an imitation precious stone for use in the manufacture of jewelry dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under said paragraph 449. The protest is sustained, and the collector's action reversed. Reliquidation will follow accordingly. No. 37097.-GLASS TOWEL BARS.-Protests 450387, etc., of Semon, Bache & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Towel bars of crystal-glass rods were held dutiable as manufactures of glass under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. G. A. 7076 (T. D. 30824) followed. Protests sustained in part. No. 37098.-PARABOLIC MIRRORS.-Protests 499755, etc., of General Electric Co. (Albany). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Protests overruled as to parabolic mirrors on the authority of Abstract 36035 (T. D. 34609). No. 37099.-IMITATION CORAL ON WIRE.-Protest 626174 of F. Wm. Gertzen Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Imitation coral on wire which the appraiser reported may be used in the manufacture of articles of utility, such as picture frames, classified as manufactures of metal and paste under paragraphs 109 and 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as imitation precious stones (par. 449) or as beads (par. 421). Protest overruled. No. 37100.-IMITATION OPALS ON WIRE.-Protest 631898 of F. Wm. Gertzen Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Imitation opals on wire, classified under paragraphs 109 and 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as imitation precious stones for use in the manufacture of jewelry (par. 449). Protest overruled. Abstract 35260 (T. D. 34321) cited. No. 37101.-JEWELS-IMITATION PRECIOUS STONES.-Protest 601615 of Guthman, Solomons & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Jewels consisting of paste glass forms, classified as manufactures of paste under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as imitation precious stones (par. 449). Abstract 26470 (T. D. 31851) followed. No. 37102.-IMITATION PRECIOUS STONES.-Protests 551237, etc., and 560665, etc., of Semon, Bache & Co. et al. (New York et al.). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. Protests overruled as to manufactures of glass or paste used for stove or lamp ornaments or designed to be sewn on wearing apparel, classified under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, and claimed dutiable as imitation precious stones (par. 449). No. 37103.-BULL'S-EYE GLASSES.-Protest 624825 of German American Glass Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Bull's-eye glasses used in connection with oil cups on locomotives, classified as cut glassware under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of glass (par. 109). BEFORE BOARD 2, DECEMBER 23, 1914. No. 37104.-PROTEST FEE.-Protests 756234-53888, etc., of Burley & Tyrrell Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. United States v. McCoy (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34445) followed as to protest fee. No. 37105.-POST CARDS, EMBOSSED.-Protest 763862 of Wm. H. Stiner & Son (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Fuld (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 234; T. D. 33476) embossed post cards were held dutiable as printed matter under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909. No. 37106.-TINSEL TRIMMINGS-BRAIDS.-Protest 742922-48699 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Laces and trimmings in chief value of tinsel thread, classified under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, were claimed to be braids, dutiable under paragraph 150. Protest overruled. G. A. 7574 (T. D. 34547) followed. No. 37107.-BLANKETS-COTTON CLOTH.-Protest 726813 of F. Rosenstern & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Blankets having unfinished edges, classified as cotton articles under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as countable cotton cloth (par. 315). No. 37108.-COUNTABLE COTTON, MERCERIZED.-Protest 727403 of J. Sachs & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protest sustained as to the count of threads in figured colored cotton cloth, mercerized, classified under paragraphs 315 and 323, tariff act of 1909. No. 37109.-SURGICAL BANDAGES.-Protest 750247 of Seabury & Johnson (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Surgical bandages classified as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 266, tariff act of 1913, were held dutiable as bandings (par. 262). No. 37110.-FLAX FABRICS.-Protest 750653 of R. F. Downing & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Merchandise classified as manufactures of flax under paragraph 284, tariff act of 1913, was held dutiable as plain woven fabric (par. 283). Protest sustained in part. No. 87111.-RELIQUIDATION-FLAX PILLOW TUBING.-Protest 756773 of Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. In this case the collector reliquidated an entry of flax pillow tubing in accordance with the findings of the board. This was held not a new decision against which protest will lie. G. A. 7576 (T. D. 34570) cited. Protest dismissed. No. 37112.-COTTON TAPE.-Protest 758035 of Samstag & Hilder Bros. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Tape classified as flax under paragraph 278, tariff act of 1913, and found to contain cotton was held dutiable under paragraph 262, as claimed. BEFORE BOARD 3, DECEMBER 24, 1914. No. 37113.-POTATO STARCH.--Protest 760333–54086 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Merchandise classified as potato starch under paragraph 234, tariff act of 1913, was claimed to be potato flour, dutiable as a nonenumerated article (par. 385). Protest overruled. No. 37114.-WEIGHT OF MUSHROOMS.-Protest 752844 of C. B. Richard & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protest overruled as to weight of mushrooms. No. 37115.-BEER-CAPACITY OF BARRELS.-Protests 456088-35494, etc., of Eitel Bros. (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A. On the authority of Hollender v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406; T. D. 33850), protests overruled as to the dutiable quantity of beer in barrels. No. 37116.-SHORTAGE-REGULATIONS.-Protest 762884 of the Raymond-Hadley Corporation (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protest overruled claiming shortage of flour, the collector reporting that the regulations were not complied with. No. 37117.-SHORTAGE.-Protest 762817 of Morimura Bros. and protest 762835 of Thomas Pirone (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests sustained claiming shortage. BEFORE BOARD 1, DECEMBER 29, 1914. No. 37118.-NOVELTY SIDING.-Protest 764127 of Canadian Pacific Railroad Co. (Portland, Me.). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Novelty siding classified as manufactures of wood under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913, was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 647. G. A. 7546 (T. D. 34305) followed. No. 37119.-SCREEN OF WOOD.-Protest 762914 of Aimone Manufacturing Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. A black lacquer screen classified under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913, was claimed dutiable as furniture of wood (par. 176). Protest overruled. Morimura v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 181; T. D. 31941) followed. No. 37120.-ENAMELED UPHOLSTERY LEATHER.-Protest 762965 of Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Merchandise classified as enameled upholstery leather under paragraph 359, tariff act of 1913, was claimed free of duty as leather not specially provided for (par. 530). Protest overruled. No. 37121.-DRESSED FURS.-Protest 762908 of J. Wassermann & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Merchandise classified as dressed furs under the first provision of paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913, was claimed dutiable under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909. Protest overruled. G. A. 7569 (T. D. 34493) noted. No. 37122.-GLASS DOOR KNOBS.-Protest 565699 of Semon, Bache & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Glass door knobs classified as articles composed of glass under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of glass (par. 109). United States v. Heil (178 Fed., 537; T. D. 30492) followed. No. 37123.-BEADS.-Protests 532437, etc., of L. P. Hollander & Co. (Boston). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. On the authority of Abstract 36939 (T. D. 34933), merchandise classified as manufactures of glass under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as beads (par. 421). No. 37124.-JEWELRY.-Protest 574445 of J. M. Gidding & Co. (New York) and protest 585420 of Robinson, Strauss & Co. (St. Paul). Opinions by Sullivan G. A. Cohn v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378; T. D. 33536) followed as to jewelry. No. 37125.-IMITATION JET.-Protests 589984, etc., of M. J. Corbett & Co. and protest 525960 of Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co. (New York). Opinions by Sullivan, G. A. United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 457; T. D. 31506) followed as to imitaon jet articles. No. 37126.-GLASS SEIDELS.-Protest 669914 of Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. (Baltimore). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Certain glass seidels classified under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 199). Protest overruled. |