During the course of the trial counsel for the importers objected to all questions asked by Government counsel tending to prove a commercial designation of the term "blankets" different from the common meaning. Such testimony was, however, taken under advisement by the single justice presiding at the trial, who reserved decision on said objections for the consideration of Division II of this court. These objections are now hereby overruled, the importers, however, being allowed an exception to our ruling in each instance. What appears to be a double length of these so-called blankets is in evidence as Exhibit 1. It has a width of about 58 inches and has a series of transverse colored stripes repeated at regular intervals. The said stripes are formed by six or eight colored weft threads or yarns. At intervals of about 72 inches appears a narrow line formed by two colored weft threads or yarns, obviously intended as a line of demarcation where the blankets are to be cut apart, and so shown by the testimony. The importers introduced some testimony showing that the blankets are imported in the piece for the purpose of convenience and economy in manufacture; that after importation they are cut apart at the lines of demarcation aforesaid and sold for use as blankets, either single or double, although it is admitted that sometimes the merchandise is bought for lining coats and other purposes; and that the blankets are not Jacquard figured or terry-woven, nor made of pile fabrics. The testimony furthermore shows that the blankets are napped on both sides, although not as much on the one side as on the other. One witness characterized the merchandise as shoddy blankets, and stated that some shoddy blankets have no nap at all. In our opinion, the testimony introduced and elicited by the Government fails to show any commercial meaning of the term "blankets" different from the common or ordinary meaning of same, nor does it prove that all blankets have to be napped on both sides or equally napped on both sides, while, on the other hand, we are satisfied from the testimony of the importers that the merchandise in question consists of cotton blankets in the piece, notwithstanding that they are sometimes put to other uses than as blankets. This view, we think, is amply supported by the case of United States v. International Forwarding Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198, T. D. 42235, wherein certain pieces of wool blanketing material 4 to 5 yards long, ornamented with transverse stripes so spaced that each piece after being cut in half transversely would present the same ornamentation, but with no line of demarcation by way of dropped threads or otherwise to indicate a separation, sometimes sold together and sometimes separately, and often made into clothes, were held to constitute one blanket, and not two, for dutiable purposes under paragraph 1111 of the Tariff Act of 1922. And although the evidence showed that one-half of the blankets in that case were "made into clothes, cut up into a coat and the balance used in trousers," and that in selling them as blankets they were sold as separate entities and also cut up, the court stated on this point that "the question is not what the merchandise may be made into after importation, but what is it as imported." For the reasons stated and on authority of the decision cited above we render judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the importations dutiable as cotton blankets under said paragraph 912 at the rate of 25 per centum ad valorem. Let judgment be entered accordingly. (T. D. 43861) Tea canisters-Usual coverings H. P. LAMBERT Co. (INC.) ET AL. v. UNITED STATES Tea canisters consisting of square tin cans of sizes that will contain 20, 40, and 80 pounds of tea, the outer surfaces of which are covered with paper bearing conventional designs representing tea and certain advertising matter, and having lids upon hinges, which, when closed, present a flat surface, are not subject to additional duty as unusual articles designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of tea to the United States. United States Customs Court, Third Division Protests 320611-G, etc., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of Boston [Reversed.] (Decided February 11, 1930) G. W. R. Wallace for the plaintiffs. Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (James R. Ryan, special attorney), for the United States. Before WAITE, YOUNG, and CLINE, Justices YOUNG, Justice: This is a suit brought against the United States, arising at the port of Boston, to recover certain customs duties alleged to have been improperly exacted upon certain tea coverings. The merchandise was reported by the appraiser to consist of heavy metal cans or canisters covered with a fancy decorated paper, having a hinged cover and designed to hold 20, 40, or 80 pounds of tea. They were returned for duty as unusual containers for tea within the meaning of section 503 of the tariff act and were assessed for duty at 40 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 399 of the Tariff Act of 1922. The merchandise is claimed to be free of duty as the usual containers for tea, duty-free merchandise, and it is alleged in the 89598-30-VOL 57- -18 protests that said coverings consist of tin cans which are used as tea coverings and which weigh, including contents, more than five pounds each; that the cans are not imported separately; that the cans are usual coverings; that the form and nature of the cans were designed for use in the bona fide transportation of tea to the United States; that the cans have no value as articles of commerce after importation; that their uses are confined to the preservation of the tea while in transit and to the prevention of damage by absorption; that, after delivery, the cans are valueless even as a waste product; and that the coverings have been imported and classified as free merchandise during the past 15 years. Section 503 of the Tariff Act of 1922 reads as follows: SEC. 503. DUTIABLE VALUE.-Whenever imported merchandise is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof, the duty shall be assessed upon the value returned by the appraiser, general appraiser, or Board of General Appraisers, as the case may be. If there shall be used for covering or holding imported merchandise, whether dutiable or free of duty, any unusual material, article, or form designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, additional duties shall be levied upon such material, article, or form at the rate or rates to which the same would be subjected if separately imported. Paragraph 399 of the Tariff Act of 1922 reads as follows: PAR. 399. Articles or wares not specially provided for, if composed wholly or in chief value of platinum, gold, or silver, and articles or wares plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, whether partly or wholly manufactured, 60 per centum ad valorem; if composed wholly or in chief value of iron, steel, lead, copper, brass, nickel, pewter, zinc, aluminum, or other metal, but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, whether partly or wholly manufactured, 40 per centum ad valorem. Paragraph 1682 of the Tariff Act of 1922 reads as follows: PAR. 1682. Tea not specially provided for, and tea plants: Provided, That all cans, boxes, and other immediate containers, including paper, and other wrappings of tea in packages of less than five pounds each, and all intermediate containers of such tea, shall be dutiable at the rate chargeable thereon if imported empty: Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to repeal or impair the provisions of an Act entitled "An Act to prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome tea," approved March 2, 1897, and any Act amendatory thereof. Hugh McSweeney was called as a witness. He said that he was a traveling man for Siegfried Schmidt Co., the owner and importer of the merchandise the subject of these protests, and that he had been engaged in the tea business for about 12 years. He said that the merchandise involved herein contained 80 pounds of tea, that the tea is packed in the cans in bulk, and that there is nothing else in the way of paper or bagging contained in the cans; that the tea rests against the tin; that the coverings have been used by his firm during the past 10 years; that upon their investigation and also that of the Depart ment of Agriculture it was found that when tea is packed in tins it keeps better than if packed in wood; that the tea goes to the consumer in the coverings; that they never refill the tins and never see them again; that they have been told that after the coverings are used and the tea emptied out of them there is not much left of them and they are a wreck; that he knew of no use to which they could be devoted after the tea had been taken from them; that they were designed for carrying tea and that is all they are used for; that he has never seen them used for anything else; and that the same had heretofore been passed duty free. It appears from the testimony that the coverings for tea involved herein are immediate containers and that they hold 80 pounds of tea in some instances, and 40 or 20 pounds in others, and therefore are not included within the provisions of paragraph 1682, supra. It also appears from the testimony that the coverings are usual coverings for tea and are not devoted to any other use after the tea has been emptied from them. From an examination of the sample in evidence, marked "Exhibit 1," we find it to be a tin can about 15 inches square and 22 inches high. The top is constructed so that two-thirds of it opens up, working on a hinge, and when closed forms a flat surface. The inside of the lid or cover is covered with paper having printed thereon a picture of women picking tea. The outside of the cover has a ring attached thereto for the purpose of lifting the lid, and the outer surface of the entire canister including the lid is also covered with paper having thereon a conventional design representing tea and certain advertising matter relating to tea. In the case of Nixon v. Howland, T. D. 26877, the United States Circuit Court held that canisters about 2 feet high and 16 inches square covered with paper of an ornamental character and showing the name of the importer, having a lid or cover which works on a hinge and when shut forms a slanting surface on the front of the canister, were entitled to free entry as being the usual coverings for tea and not designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of tea to the United States. For the reasons stated the protests are sustained. Let judgment be entered accordingly. (T. D. 43862) Dried apricots D. H. ARMAGHANIAN v. UNITED STATES Apricots, crushed through a sieve by hand, spread upon a sheet and exposed to the sun to dry, then rolled in bundles, are dutiable as dried apricots under paragraph 735, Tariff Act of 1922, rather than as apricots otherwise prepared or preserved under the same paragraph. Citing French Kreme Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 126, T. D. 42768; Shallus v. United States, T. D. 43735; and French Kreme Co. v. United States, T. D. 43739. United States Customs Court, Third Division Protest 170609-G against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York [Reversed.] (Decided February 11, 1930) Strauss & Hedges (Jacob L. Klingaman of counsel) for the plaintiff. Charles D. Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General (Ralph Folks, special attorney), for the United States. Before WAITE, YOUNG, and CLINE, Justices; WAITE, J., dissenting CLINE, Justice: This is a protest against the collector's classification and assessment of duty on the merchandise herein as apricots, prepared or preserved, at 35 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 735, Tariff Act of 1922. Plaintiff claims the same to be dried apricots and dutiable at one-half cent per pound under the same paragraph, which reads as follows: PAR. 735. Apricots, green, ripe, dried, or in brine, one-half of 1 cent per pound; otherwise prepared or preserved, 35 per centum ad valorem. The record shows that the apricots are crushed by hand through a sieve, the pits remaining. The greater portion of the fruit passes through the sieve and is then spread on a sheet and exposed to the sun to dry, when it is rolled in bundles and shipped. The facts are analogous to those in the cases of French Kreme Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 126, T. D. 42768; Shallus v. United States, T. D. 43735; and French Kreme Co. v. United States, T. D. 43739. In the Shallus case, supra, this division held egg albumen in the form of crystals, admittedly dried, to be classifiable as dried egg albumen rather than as egg albumen, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for. In that case it was testified that the eggs were broken, the albumen separated from the yolk, placed in containers, and allowed to ferment, whereupon carbonate of ammonia was added. The commodity was then placed in pans and subjected to from 130 to 150 degrees of heat, and when dry was broken into small pieces. In the French Kreme Co. case, T. D. 43739, supra, this division held egg yolk dried by the spray process to be dried egg yolk rather than egg yolk, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, following the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals in French Kreme Co. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 126, T. D. 42768. The records in the French Kreme Co. cases, supra, show that the spray process for drying egg yolk is an elaborate operation; nevertheless, |