thus considered certainly do not tend to show that the decision of the reappraising board was contrary to law or based upon an erroneous principle. They state in substance that the 10 per cent deduction which appears in the invoice was in the nature of a purchasing commission, the same having been agreed upon in advance as a method of paying the Dublin firm for their services in purchasing, receiving, and forwarding the goods on behalf of the importers. The letters further state that the entered value was in fact the true wholesale market value of the merchandise in the country of exportation. These statements are not contradicted or avoided in any manner in the record, and they tend to show that the item in question was nondutiable. United States v. Bauer (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 343; T. D. 22627). Nor is the statement in the consular invoice that the Dublin firm are sellcis of the goods necessarily inconsistent with this conclusion, for nevertheless the circumstances are open to explanation, and part of the ostensible price of the goods may be shown to be a commission. Case of Alex. Smith & Sons Carpet Co. (T. D. 24721). If the importers' letters, therefore, should not be considered, nothing would remain in the record to impeach the finding of the board of three, and the action of the collector would thereupon stand as a bare refusal to accept the appraisement made by that board. If on the other hand the letters should be considered, they would at least not tend to impeach the board's appraisement as proceeding upon a wrong principle. This conclusion manifestly disposes of the record rather than the issues of law and fact which counsel have argued. Inasmuch, however, as the appeal fails, the decision of the board is affirmed. United States v. Eytinge & Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 266; T. D. 33486). (T. D. 34169.) HIRSHBACH & SMITH V. UNITED STATES (No. 1201). ORNAMENTAL PAPER LEAVES OF VARIOUS COLORS. There is no evidence that this merchandise has been embossed and die cut, but even if there were such evidence, these leaves, simulating natural leaves as they do and being ornamental, are more specifically described in paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909, and they were dutiable thereunder. United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 29, 1914. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32291 (T. D. 33409). [Affirmed.] Comstock & Washburn (George J. Puckhafer on the brief) for appellants. William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Leland N. Wood, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise is truly described in the evidence and in the opinion of the board as paper leaves of various colors. It was assessed for duty under paragraph 438 of the tariff act of 1909, the relevant portion of which relates to Artificial or ornamental feathers, fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems or parts thereof, of whatever material composed, not specially provided for in this section. This assessment was upheld by the Board of General Appraisers. The importers in this court claim that the merchandise is properly dutiabie under paragraph 415 of the same act, the relevant part of which relates to * Paper embossed, or cut, die-cut, or stamped into designs or shapes, such as initials, monograms, lace, borders, bands, strips, or other forms, * not specially provided for in this section. These leaves are ornamental in appearance and are used by confectioners for trimming or decorating cakes. They simulate natural leaves of various colors. The importers concede they are in the form or shape of leaves and we have no hesitation in saying that in all material respects they so closely simulate the natural product that they must be held to be artificial leaves and so clearly within the provisions of paragraph 438, unless excluded therefrom by what is hereinafter referred to. It is urged by the importers that they are excluded therefrom because it is said that, generally speaking, the field of operation of that paragraph is in the millinery trade, and it is argued that these leaves are embossed and die cut into their present form. We do not find in the record any evidence tending to show that the merchandise has been embossed and die cut and hardly feel warranted in assuming as a matter of judicial knowledge that they are so. If the importers would stand upon that claim it was their duty to make proof of the manner of production. If, however, it were to be assumed that these paper leaves are produced by an embossing or die-cutting process we still think the importers' claim untenable. The descriptive language in paragraph 438, "artificial and ornamental" (and these are both artificial and ornamental) "leaves of whatever material composed," is more explicit than the provision in paragraph 415 for "paper embossed or die cut into shapes" (certain shapes not including leaves being specified) "or other forms." The word "leaves" refers to a particular class of "shapes or forms" and not only more specifically describes them but is the only single word that could be employed to accomplish that result. That it is used with that intention is evidenced by the fact that it is followed by the words "of whatever material composed." It can not be said that paragraph 438 is wholly limited to millinery articles, for while it relates to many things that are so used it does not make use the test and clearly includes articles which serve other purposes. The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. (T. D. 34170.) Chamois skin. UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN EXPRESS Co. (No. 1261). CHAMOIS OR CHAMOIS SKIN. These pieces of chamois or chamois skin, the terms being interchangeable, have not become manufactures of leather by being cut into particular sizes and by having their edges scalloped. They remain chamois or chamois skin and were dutiable as such under paragraph 451 tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 29, 1914. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32274 (T. D. 33578). [Affirmed.] William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Charles D. Lawrence, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Comstock & Washburn for appellee. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, Barber, De VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The question in this case is whether an importation described in the answer to the protest as "articles of chamois, with cut-out edges, known as face chamois" is dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem as a manufacture of leather under paragraph 452 of the tariff act of 1909, as assessed, or at 20 per cent ad valorem as "chamois skin" under paragraph 451, as claimed by the importer and held by the Board of General Appraisers. The sample of the merchandise used as an exhibit is a small piece of ordinary chamois about 9 by 64 inches with scalloped edges. The case is here upon the record and files. no parol testimony having been taken by the board. It is unnecessary to quote in full either of the competing paragraphs. Paragraph 452, so far as pertinent, relates to "manufactures of leather not specially provided for" and paragraph 451 to "chamois skin," and if the latter term more specifically describes the merchandise in question than the former, the board should be sustained. It is well known that originally the term "chamois or chamois. skin," as applied to merchandise of this character, related to the skin or some product thereof of the chamois, an animal found in the mountainous districts of Europe and Asia, said to be about the size of a full-grown goat. We think it is equally now well known that it relates to a soft leather made from various skins, perhaps most often from sheepskin, so tanned, dressed, for prepared that it is very soft and pliable. (See Century and Murray's New English dictionaries.) As it is commonly understood we think the term "chamois" or "chamois skin," and we also think they are used interchangeably, relates to this kind of tanned and dressed skin often if not generally in pieces smaller than the size of the skin of the animal from which it was originally taken. It is a commodity that is devoted to a multitude of uses. We assume that by the term "face chamois" adopted by the appraiser in his answer to the protest it is implied that the particular importation in his opinion was designed to be used for toilet purposes, but there is nothing about the article itself that limits or confines it to that use and it may equally well be applied to some of the many other uses to which chamois itself is applied. Whatever may be the use or uses to which it may be applied it is, however, chamois or chamois skin, and therefore specifically provided for in paragraph 451. It has not been manufactured into any of the articles named in paragraph 452 and is in no sense a manufacture of leather thereunder unless the cutting into the particular size in question and the scalloping of the edges be so regarded. We think the operations thereby involved do not have that effect, for, as stated, the article is still chamois or chamois skin within the common understanding of the meaning of that term. A similar view was adopted by the Board of General Appraisers in G. A. 7425 (T. D. 33143). The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers ought to be, and it is, affirmed. (T. D. 34171.) Memorandum of Decisions, Court of Customs Appeals. [Omitted from this edition.] (T. D. 34172.) Drawback on soap. Drawback on a toilet preparation designated as Reuter's soap, manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and various imported materials in combination with domestic materials. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 9, 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 a toilet preparation designated as Reuter's soap, manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and various imported materials in combination with domestic materials specified in the sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated December 24, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. The allowance shall not exceed the quantities of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported materials used in the manufacture of the exported soap, as shown in the sworn statement of the manufacturers above referred to. As soon as practicable after the 1st of January of each year there shall be filed in your office a sworn statement by the manufacturers, stating whether any change has been made in the formula of the odor base, the quantities of odor base and saponific base used in the manufacture of the soap or the size, number, or weight of cakes of soap produced. T. D. 33943 of December 2, 1913, extended to cover wrappers and labels manufactured by the Lord Baltimore Press, of Baltimore, Md., from imported surface-coated papers for the account of the Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., of Fulton, N. Y. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 9, 1914. SIR: The department's regulations of December 2, 1913 (T. D. 33943), providing for the payment of drawback on milk chocolates manufactured by the Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co. (Inc.), Fulton, N. Y., for the account of Lamont, Corliss & Co., of New York, N. Y., are hereby extended to cover labels and wrappers in which the said chocolates are exported for the account of the Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co. by the Lord Baltimore Press, of Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported surface-coated papers. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported paper appearing in the exported wrappers and labels, as shown by the sworn statement of the Lord Baltimore Press, dated January 19, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Sandalwood and orris root not dutiable under paragraph 49, tariff act of 1913, but free of duty under paragraph 477 of the said act. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 9, 1914. SIR: The department duly received your letter of December 13, 1913, relative to the classification of sandalwood and orris root, in |