usual care, as in all cases when Denia raisins are found to exceed 28 pounds per box, in anticipation of complaint from the importers." The appellants do not traverse the correctness of the weigher's return, but claim that the average weight of the raisins in question is 28 pounds per box-a claim that is founded on the trade custom of accepting such a weight as the standard for similar packages of Denia raisins. The appellants would seem to have cause for complaint, as they no doubt bought and sold the merchandise at the invoice weight, namely, 28 pounds per half box. The board, however, is unable to afford them the relief asked for. The return of the U. S. weigher, who reports he acted with unusual care in this case, was undoubtedly correct; and inasmuch as paragraph 302 imposes a duty of 2 cents per pound on raisins in whatever manner packed, we hold that actual weight and not an arbitrary weight adopted by trade must be taken.

We find the weight and classification of the merchandise adopted by the collector was true and correct in every respect. His decision is affirmed and the protest is overruled.

(14625—G. Á. 2383.)

Manifest clerical error in invoice-Excessive valuation a.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1893. In the matter of the protest, 43143 a-557, of Benjamin & Caspary, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise (excessive valuation), imported per Havel, December 15, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The protest in this case was lodged against the amount of duty assessed by the collector on certain silk-embroidered flowers which the appellants claim were invoiced at an erroneous valuation. There is no question before us touching the rate of duty applicable to the merchandise. An examination of the invoice shows six items, aggregating 451 dozen embroidered flowers. The appellants at the hearing in their case submitted a sample of each of these items, marked with the pattern number corresponding with the number on the invoice. Pattern No. 285, the item claimed to have been erroneously valued, is invoiced at 6 marks per dozen, and is claimed to have been purchased at .60 mark per dozen. The samples submitted show conclusively that if the value returned by the local appraiser on five of the items in the invoice were correct, the value of the sixth, the merchandise covered by protest, was not 6 marks per dozen, but estimated by count of stitches was properly .60 mark per dozen, as claimed by the appellants. In our opinion, the excessive valuation of the flowers in question was due to clerical error, manifest to an appraising officer making a careful and intelligent examination of the merchandise. We concur in the ruling of the

Treasury Department covering a somewhat similar case, published in Synopsis 4180, September 6, 1879.

We find the true value of the merchandise to be .60 mark per dozen, and find further that the invoice value thereof is a manifest clerical error. The protest is sustained and the collector's decision is reversed [Withheld for review.]

(14626-G. A. 2384.)

Additional duty under section 7 does not apply severally to the component materials of an imported article.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1893.

In the matter of the protest, 45235 a-40580, of T. S. Todd & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain steel wire rope (additional duty), imported per Servia, April 8, 1891.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

We find as facts that on the entry, by pro forma invoice, the value of steel wire entering into the fabrication of an importation of steel wire rope covered by this protest was declared to be £11 78., and the completed rope £23 12s. The local appraiser advanced these values, and a reappraisement of the merchandise had in accordance with the provisions of section 13, act of June 10, 1890, finally fixed the value of the wire at £12 178. 11d., and of the rope at £24 188. 4d. The collector at the time of liquidating the entry decided that inasmuch as the appraised value of the steel wire exceeded by more than 10 per cent the value declared in the entry, additional duty accrued on said steel wire. The appellants claim that additional duty does not accrue on the merchandise for the reason that the appraised value of the rope did not exceed by more than 10 per cent the value declared in the entry.

In our opinion, the claim of the appellants is well founded. Paragraph 148 provides that the value of steel wire must be determined for purposes of classification, and under conditions specified the amount of duty chargeable thereon is fixed by the appraised value thereof, but section 7 provides that if the appraised value of any article of imported merchandise shall exceed by more than 10 per cent the value declared on the entry, there shall be levied, collected, and paid in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise a further sum, etc.

The article of imported merchandise in this case was steel wire rope, and the provision of section 7 must be held to apply to the completed article as imported and not to the material or materials composing the same. In accordance with the foregoing views, we hold that additional duty does not accrue on the importation in question.

The protest is sustained and the collector's decision is reversed.

(14627-G. A. 2385.)

Glass-headed pins.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 21, 1893.

In the matter of the protest, 57396 a-12416, of H. Wolff & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain pins-bonnet, belt, and lace-imported per Elbe, June 8, 1893.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

We find that the articles in question are pins, metallic, having glass heads and known commercially as bonnet pins and lace or belt pins. It is difficult to state with certainty whether glass or metal is the component material of chief value therein, but for the purposes of this case we find as facts that glass in the lace or belt pins and metal in the bonnet pins are, respectively, the component materials of chief value. In G. A. 2059 the board, in effect, held that the word "metallic" qualified the pin or shaft, and that the heads thereto need not necessarily be of metal. We can not think that paragraph 206 covers pins made exclusively of metal, otherwise the additional words "solid head or other" would seem to be superfluous. It will be seen that the preceding paragraph to 206 provides for penholder tips and parts of penholders. These articles are usually made of wood. It would seem reasonable, then, to believe that the words "pins, metallic," were descriptive and used in contradistinction to wood clothes pins, linchpins, etc.

In the cotton schedule, paragraph 354 provides for cotton boot, shoe, and corset lacings and braces and suspenders. Such articles, although having metal attachments, have never been classified elsewhere than under this paragraph.

We are of the opinion that inasmuch as the articles in question are commercially known as bonnet pins and lace or belt pins, they are specifically provided for in paragraph 206.

The protest is sustained and the collector's decision is reversed. [Withheld for review.]

(14628-G. A. 2386.)

Silk and mohair Chantilly laces.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 26, 1893.

In the matter of the protest, 13813 a, etc., of Goldenberg Bros. & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain silk and mohair Chantilly laces, imported per vessels as per annexed schedule.

Opinion by HAM. General Appraiser.

The merchandise in these cases consists of silk and mohair Chantilly laces, assessed for duty at 60 cents a pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 398, but claimed to be entitled to entry at 60 per cent ad valorem as laces of which silk is the component material of chief value under paragraph 413.

The cases are submitted on the record and a sample furnished by appellants and accepted as a true sample of the merchandise in contro

versy.

A quantitative analysis of this sample by the Government chemist of the local appraiser's staff, at the port of New York, shows the following results:

Percentage of value: Silk, 70·3; mohair, 29-7; total, 100.

Percentage of weight: Silk, 41.55; mohair, 58.45; total, 100.

On the evidence we find as facts:

(1) That said merchandise was imported under the act of October 1, 1890.

(2) That it consists of silk and mohair laces.

(3) That the component material of chief value therein is silk; but (4) That the mohair component amounts in value to nearly 30 per cent, and in weight to more than 58 per cent of the entire articles; and (5) That mohair is a product of goat hair or wool.

Paragraph 398, under which the merchandise was assessed for duty is, in part, as follows:

Laces * ** made of wool, worsted, the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or other animals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or other animals is a component material, the duty shall be sixty cents per pound, and in addition thereto sixty per centum ad valorem—

While paragraph 413 is, in part, as follows:

Laces * * * made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, composed of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, sixty per centum ad valorem.

The basis of the claim of appellants is that the component material of chief value in the laces is silk. The language of the protests is as follows:

We claim said merchandise to be dutiable as silk laces at 60 per cent ad valorem, and not at the rate of 60 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem exacted by you, as the amount of mohair in above goods is very insignificant, and of almost no value, compared to the silk contained therein.

This statement of fact is erroneous, as appears from the quantitative analysis of the laces in question hereinbefore set forth.

The decision in G. A. 1219, to which appellants here were parties, and which related to silk and mohair laces, is relied upon by these appellants. But that case differs widely from the case at bar. It is stated in the opinion in G. A. 1219 that the mohair component in the laces under consideration in that case was "of trifling quantity and value compared with the silk component," and the finding of fact was in accordance with this statement. But here the mohair component constitutes nearly two-thirds of the weight, and nearly one-third of the value of the completed article.

It remains to consider the case at bar independently of any previous adjudications of the board on its merits.

If paragraphs 398 and 413 are considered independently of each other, it would appear superficially that the merchandise is provided for in both of them, since the component material of chief value therein is silk, and it contains a wool or worsted component, significant, not less in quantity than in value; but the two paragraphs must be construed together, and harmonized, if possible, and upon examination the difference, which is essential, appears. Paragraph 413 contains the qualifying clause "not specially provided for in this act," while no such clause appears in paragraph 398.

The laces in controversy containing silk as their component material of chief value fall under the terms of paragraph 413, unless they are, in the language of that paragraph, "specially provided for" elsewhere in the act. Turning to paragraph 398 we find this definite provision, "laces made of wool, etc., or of which wool, etc., is a component material." In the case of Zucker and Leavitt Chemical Company v. Magone, U. S. circuit court for the southern di-trict of New York (37 Fed. Rep., 776), Lacombe, judge, it was held (syllabus):

Where two provisions of the tariff act apply to an imported article, the first of which provisions is qualified by the phrase "not otherwise provided for," while the second contains no such qualifying phrase, the article is properly dutiable under the second provision, and must be held to be therein "otherwise provided for," so as to take it out of the operation of the first provision.

This, we think, is a conclusion of law not less obvious than sound, and it is equally conclusive of this case.

We hold, therefore, that the protests are not well taken. They are accordingly overruled, and the decision of the collector in each case is affirmed.

(14629-G. A. 2387.)

Wrought-iron propeller (steamer) shaft.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 26, 1893.

In the matter of the protest. 44330 a-22365, of R. F. Downing & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on a certain iron propeller shaft imported per Westernland, June 9, 1892.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The board makes the following findings of fact in this case:

(1) The merchandise covered by the protest is a wrought-iron propeller shaft, known as steamer tail shaft, costing 6,500 francs (about $1,300), and weighing 12,385 pounds.

(2) The article is about 30 feet long, is made of iron or steel, with one extreme end made of composition metal, containing copper, tin. or zinc, designed to prevent corrosion by sea water.