nant use is for food purposes, and it may very consistently be held that a particular importation should be classified as wheat, or oats, or rye, as specifically provided for, though it will not germinate. In the case before us, parsley seed is specifically provided for in the seed paragraph (266), but as this importation does not possess the germinating quality and was not imported for planting purposes, we are of the opinion that it is not a seed within the meaning of that paragraph, but falls under the provision in paragraph 559 for "drugs, such as * seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), * * * in a crude state." The protest is therefore sustained, and free entry granted under paragraph 559. Note United States v. Kauffman (84 Fed., 446) and United States v. Shing Shun & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 388; T. D. 32113).

*

*

No. 36224.-"SHOYU"-SAUCE.-Protests 663759, etc., of Okada & Ichida Co. et al. (San Francisco and Los Angeles).

WAITE, General Appraiser: The commodity in these cases, imported from Japan, is invoiced as "shoyu." It is in tubs containing about 4 gallons each. It has been assessed at 40 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 253, tariff act of 1909, for "sauces of all kinds." The importers claim it is dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480 as an unenumerated manufactured article.

Considerable testimony has been taken on the part of the importers. The witnesses produced are for the most part Japanese who have lived for a considerable time in this country, and who have in each instance been familiar with this commodity for a number of years some of them as many as 20 years. They are also familiar with the method of manufacture. The testimony as to how it is produced varies somewhat, but in the main is as stated in Exhibit 1, introduced in connection with the testimony of witness Miwa. This document reads as follows:

Method of shoyu brewing.

Materials: Soya beans, wheat, salt, and water.

TOKYO, JAPAN, August 10, 1913.

Some picked wheat is placed in iron pot and parched with proper heat and then is pounded in grinder. At the same time some soya beans are placed in a boiler and boiled for three to four hours, and then it is cooled until it reaches about 40° C., and mix it well with those pounded wheat, and the compound is measured and placed in flat tray, commonly known as "yeast tray," and keep it in a yeast cellar for four to five days, when the process of fermentation ceases. What is thus resulted is called "koji" or "yeast" or "barm."

On the other hand, a certain quantity of salt is dissolved into water and well boiled and then, after cooled, it is removed into what is known as fitting tub. At this point the koji (yeast or barm) is mixed with this and keep the compound, stirring it with a sort of paddle several times a day and thus letting it gradually fermented until it turns to a form of liquid, with more or less reddish dark color, known as “moromi” (unbrewed liquid). It requires from one to two or three years to mature. And then put the "moromi" in hemp bag and place it in squeezing apparatus, and the liquid is thus separated from the dregs. This liquid again placed in double boiler and is properly heated. What is thus produced is the so-called “shoyu.”

The sample presented as representative of these importations appears to be a dark reddish-brown liquid. At a temperature of 80° F. it appears to be thicker than water, of a rather sticky consistency.

In G. A. 6550 (T. D. 27944) the board stated that thin soy was concededly a table condiment of Chinese and Japanese origin and indicated that it was a sauce. The board held in that case that thick soy was properly dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article. This ruling was affirmed in United States v. Wo On & Co. (167 Fed., 314; T. D. 29571).

A commodity called “shoyu” was passed upon in Abstract 12761 (T. D. 27591) and was there classified as a sauce, as the record did not show it to be a thick soy, which had been held to be a manufactured article.

The method in which the commodity in the cases at bar is used must be considered as important in determining how it should be classified. The witnesses familiar with the use of shoyu practically agree in their testimony that this commodity is very largely used as a flavoring in preparing food and not as a sauce. It is used in the kitchen or culinary departments and cooked with the food which is being prepared. The testimony shows that perhaps 5 per cent is used on the table to give a flavor to the cooked food. It appears, however, that of this 5 per cent a considerable portion is changed or modified in some way by the addition of vinegar, sugar, etc., in order to make it suitable for use as a flavoring or sauce for the prepared comestibles. Probably not over 1 per cent, if the testimony is to be relied upon, is used in its raw or original condition on the table with the food. The testimony, we think, clearly shows that the great part of it is used as salt would be used, and also for the purpose of coloring the food, which is insisted upon as a matter of taste by the Japanese. We are therefore of the opinion that this is not a sauce within the meaning of that term in the statute. It differs somewhat in its constituent parts, according to the evidence in the case, from the commodity passed upon by the board and the court, which was Chinese soy. See G. A. 6550 (T. D. 27944); United States v. Wo On & Co. (167 Fed., 314; T. D. 29571), supra. We are of the opinion, however, that it may be, on the whole, considered as about the same commodity from the standpoint of the law as the thick soy there con sidered. From the description given of the method of its manufacture, which seems to require careful, elaborate, and somewhat tedious handlings and manipulations before the article can be said to have been regularly produced, we find it to be a manufactured article, and dutiable as claimed by the importers under paragraph 480 at 20 per cent ad valorem.

G

The protests scheduled are therefore sustained with the exception of protests 654469, 680411, and 680412, which were not filed in time, and for that reason are dismissed.

No. 36225.-BRONZE AND IVORY STATUE

Sculptures.-Protest 431553 of Peter

Gibson (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Merchandise described by the appraiser as a cast bronze figure of recent production, fitted with ivory, classified as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as sculptures (par. 470).

No. 36226.-WOOD PULP-CANADIAN RECIPROCITY-FAVORED NATIONS.-Protests 618863, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. et al. (Boston, etc.). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.

American Express Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 33434) followed as to wood pulp.

No. 36227.-FIRE BRICK.-Protest 720389 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Merchandise classified as "brick other than fire brick" under paragraph 84, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as fire brick under the same paragraph.

No. 36228.-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 726038 of B. N. Moore & Sons Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437), United States v. Wyman (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485), and G. A. 7476 (T. D. 33590) followed as to clerical error.

No. 36229.-PRO FORMA Invoice-Value.-Protest 727144 of Bemis Bro. Bag Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled, claiming that duty should have been assessed upon the value given in the pro forma invoice, which was also the appraised value. United States v. Hobbs (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 256; T. D. 32567) followed.

No. 36230.-IMITATION PEARL BEADS-FITTED LEATHER CASES.-Protest 639764 of J. L. Vandiver (Philadelphia). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Lorsch v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., ; T. D. 34132) followed as to imitation pearl beads. United States v. Cross (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 274; T. D. 33489) and Abstract 33671 (T. D. 33763) followed as to fitted leather cases.

No. 36231.-SHORTAGE.-Protest 726176 of Arnold Hoffman & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled claiming shortage of olive oil.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JULY 31, 1914.

No. 36232.-THERMOMETERS AND BOXES-ENTIRETIES-DUTIABLE VALUE-SAND GLASSES.-Protests 684472, etc., of Eimer & Amend (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Bath thermometers in chief value of wood were held dutiable under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Protests overruled as to sand glasses set in wooden holders or stands, composed in chief value of wood and glass, classified under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. Thermometers with paper scales inclosed in cardboard boxes, which were claimed should have been treated as entireties and the value of the boxes included in arriving at the component material of chief value, were held dutiable as blown glass under paragraph 98, as classified. G. A. 7346 (T. D. 32378) and Spielman v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 61; T. D. 31626) cited.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JULY 31, 1914.

No. 36233.-IMITATION HORSEHAIR HATS-TRIMMED HATS.-Protests 230298, etc., of Hunker, Neale & Forbes (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Thomass v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 86; T. D. 31107) and United States v. Cochran (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 57; T. D. 32349) followed as to imitation horsehair hats. Untrimmed hats composed of straw were held properly dutiable under paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897.

No. 36234.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 320745, etc., of J. Bieber et al., and protests 560267, etc., of W. Simpson et al. (New York). Protests abandoned.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JULY 31, 1914.

No. 36235.--PROTEST, TIMELINESS-CUSTOMS REGULATIONS-NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION.-Protest 704184 of R. Pierson & Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Waite, G. A. A protest filed more than 15 days after liquidation was claimed to be within the law, for the reason that notice of liquidation was not received by the importers. Protest dismissed, no requirement for such notice being in the statute.

54685-VOL 27-14-7

No. 36236.-BARLEY-SCREENINGS.-Protests 652794, etc., of Atwood, Stone Co. (Minneapolis). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Merchandise classified as barley under paragraph 230, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be barley screenings, dutiable as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article (par. 480). Protests overruled. Abstract 34075 (T. D. 33872) followed.

No. 36237.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES.-Protest 705983 of Baques Frères & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Protest overruled claiming certain articles free of duty as artistic antiquities under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36238.-VEGETABLE FIBER.-Protests 707678, etc., of F. H. Cone et al. (New York and Baltimore).

The question in this case is whether certain vegetable fiber is partially or wholly manufactured. It was classified as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, or 385, tariff act of 1913.

*

*

HAY, General Appraiser: * There is some apparent conflict in the decisions of this board on merchandise that is, if not identical, very similar to that under consideration in this case. This conflict, however, grows out of the very incomplete records upon which the cases were finally submitted; and the record upon which United States v. Flatt (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34379) was taken to the Court of Customs Appeals was so incomplete as to render the opinion in the case indecisive. Uniformity in the administration of customs law is of the highest importance, and there is no branch of the law wherein the rule of stare decisis should be given greater weight than in the decision of customs cases. It however so frequently happens before this tribunal that cases are submitted upon an incomplete record—satisfactory testimony not being presented-that it is extremely difficult to reach exact conclusions as to the proper classification of merchandise. In the case at bar we think the testimony fails to overcome the presumption in favor of the correctness of the collector's action. The testimony of the chemist we think fairly shows that the merchandise is dyed. No attempt is made to controvert this by the importer, and, while not admitting it, he does not upon the witness stand make any denial of that fact. This, added to the fact that it is cut into uniform lengths and dressed, would indicate that it had passed through some process of manufacture to fit it for use in the manufacture of brooms or brushes. The protests are therefore overruled.

No. 36239.-RESIDUE FROM DISTILLATION.—Protest 729289 of Innis, Speiden & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Residue from distillation, classified as a nonenumerated article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as waste (par. 479). Protest overruled. No. 36240.-SATSUMA WARE-ENAMELED EARTHENWARE.-Protest 723795-45192 of Burley & Tyrrell Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Satsuma ware manufactured in Japan, composed of plain earthenware, glazed, was held properly classified as enameled earthenware under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909, and not dutiable as plain white or plain brown earthenware (par. 94), as claimed. G. A. 7009 (T. D. 30543), Abstract 29543 (T. D. 32767), and Frank v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85; T. D. 31633) followed.

No. 36241.-COFFEE COMPOUND.-Protests 655990, etc., of Bedford Brown et al. (Port Townsend). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protests overruled as to coffee compound classified as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909.

(T. D. 34678.)

Sugar produced in the Netherlands.

Sugar produced in the Netherlands not subject to countervailing duty under paragraph E of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 4, 1914.

To collectors and other officers of the customs:

The department has received evidence showing that the Government of the Netherlands pays no bounty upon the exportation of sugar produced in that country.

Therefore T. D. 24812 of December 2, 1903, declaring a countervailing duty on sugar produced in the Netherlands is hereby revoked. However, as sugar from certain countries is subject to a countervailing duty, the certificate of origin prescribed in paragraph 1 of T. D. 24668 of September 17, 1903, as amended by T. D. 27606 of September 14, 1906, will continue to be required on the entry of sugar from the Netherlands in order to establish the origin of such sugar.

(100638.)

WM. P. MALBURN, Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 34679.)

Drawback on mercurial preparations.

Drawback on mercurial preparations manufactured by Charles Pfizer & Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported metal mercury.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 4, 1914. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under paragraph O of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, and the drawback regulations (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on mercurial preparations designated as corrosive sublimate, calomel, red or yellow oxide of mercury, and ammoniated mercury manufactured by Charles Pfizer & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported metal mercury (quicksilver).

The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported mercury appearing in the exported preparations, as shown by the sworn statements of the manufacturers, dated July 2 and 21, 1914, which are transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

Supplemental sworn statements covering other mercurial preparations manufactured by this company with the use of imported metal mercury may be filed, and upon verification of such schedules drawback may be allowed on the preparations covered thereby.

Respectfully,
(102302.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

WM. P. MALBURN,
Assistant Secretary.