(T. D. 25972.) No. 4374.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 113578 of D. A. Shaw & Co. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers). Opinion by Somerville. G. A. Same as No. 4373 (supra). No. 4375.-SUGAR TEST.-Protests 14651, etc., of Rosenstein Brothers et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), Janu ary 11, 1905. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests overruled on authority of United States v. Bartram (131 Fed. Rep., 833; T. D. 25395), which affirmed the validity of the method prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury for ascertaining the polariscopic test of sugar under paragraph 209, tariff act of 1897. No. 4376.-SUGAR TEST.-Protests 40328 f, etc., of Maitland, Coppell & Co. et al. Same as No. 4375 (supra). No. 4377.-FIGURED COTTON CLOTH.-Protests 31633 f, etc., of Billwiller Brothers et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and DeVries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by DeVries, G. A. The merchandise was held to have been properly classified as figured cotton cloth under paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897. No. 4378.-COTTON ARTICLES.-Protest 27137 h of John N. Peet against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by De Vries, G. A. Certain articles, classified as manufactures of cotton, were held to be dutiable as cotton cloth, as claimed by the importer. No. 4379.-SILK RIBBONS.-Protest 31756ƒ of J. Kridel, Sons & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Certain silk ribbons were held to be dutiable as manufactures of silk under paragraph 391, tariff act of 1897, as claimed by the importers. G. A. 5802 (T. D. 25632) followed. No. 4380.-METAL THREAD.-Protests 113728, etc., of Louis Metzger & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. The merchandise consisted of metal thread composed of lame or tinsel wire wound on a cotton core and was held to have been properly classified under the provision for metal threads in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1897. Note G. A. 5140 (T. D. 23729). No. 4381.-METAL FIGURES-TOYS.-Protests 98546f, etc., of C. B. Rouss et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Certain metal figures of animals, birds, Indians, wigwams, etc., were claimed to be dutiable as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897. Protests overruled on the authority of G. A. 3422 (T. D. 16994) relating to similar merchandise. (T. D. 25972.) No. 4382.-LEATHER INKSTAND AND POCKETBOOKS.-Protests 115913, etc., of Stone & Downer Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. The goods were leather pocketbooks with metal mountings and an inkstand, consisting of a small glass inkwell with metal mounting and a leather top, set into a tray, entirely covered with leather. The Board sustained the importers' contention, that these articles should have been classified as manufactures in chief value of leather under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1897. No. 4383.-COTTON AND SILK MUFFLERS.-Protest 27205h of M. L. Eckstein against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain mufflers of cotton and silk, cotton being the component material of chief value, which were classified under the provision in paragraph 388, tariff act of 1897, for mufflers in part of silk, were claimed by the importer to be dutiable under paragraph 312 as “mufflers composed of cotton." Protest overruled on authority of G. A. 5153 (T. D. 23755). No. 4384.-PROTEST REFERRING TO ANOTHER PROTEST-SUFFICIENCY.-Protest 134505 of Wilfred Schade & Co. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of St. Louis. Before Board 2 (Fischer. Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. The pertinent part of this protest reads as follows: "We claim that the goods in question are specially provided for and dutiable under paragraphs mentioned on previous protest 4964." HOWELL, General Appraiser: * * We are of the opinion that this protest fails to comply with the requirements of section 14 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, and for this reason must be overruled (United States v. Bayersdorfer, T. D. 24923). In the Bayersdorfer case it was held that it was a matter of no moment that another protest making a proper claim was before this Board, as it was not a part of the record and could not be considered in deciding the case making reference thereto. No. 4385.—SILK VEILINGS.-Protest 136795 of Chicago Mercantile Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The merchandise was held to have been properly classified as silk veilings under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. No. 4386.—RAMIE LACE.-Protest 138580 of Wilfred Schade & Co. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of St. Louis. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain shawls of ramie having an openwork pattern with lace effect were held to have been properly classified under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, relating to articles in part of lace or imitation of lace composed wholly or in chief value of vegetable (T. D. 25972.) No. 4387.-LINEN BOBBINS.-Protests 9353 h, etc., of H. B. Claflin Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain goods, invoiced as linen bobbins, were held to be dutiable under paragraph 320, tariff act of 1897, as tapes as claimed by the importers. G. A. 5302 (T. D. 24302) followed. No. 4388.-HORSEHAIR BRAIDS.-Protest 22317 h of Dearberg Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain horsehair braids were held to be dutiable by similitude as silk braids as claimed by the importers. G. A. 5590 (T. D. 25022) followed. No. 4389.-PRESERVED LEAVES-DYED Moss.-Protests 111578, etc., of Carl Netschert against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Certain leaves preserved in their natural state by dipping in a chemical solution were held, on authority of G. A. 5800 (T. D. 25630), to have been properly classified under paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, as ornamental leaves. Certain dyed moss was held, on authority of Abstract 2889 (T. D. 25600), to have been properly classified as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of said act. No. 4390.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 27605 h of Leon Rheims Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 12, 1905. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protest overruled on account of insufficient evidence. No. 4391.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 3031 h of C. B. Rouss. Same as No. 4390 (supra). No. 4392.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 131134 of Wilfred Schade & Co. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of St. Louis. Same as No. 4390 (supra). No. 4393.- PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.- Protest 113800 of A. Steinhardt & Bro. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Same as No. 4390 (supra). No. 4394.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 135494 of H. Marquardt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Mobile. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Same as No. 4390 (supra). No. 4395.-STRAW BRAIDS.-Protest 70539ƒ of G. W. Sheldon & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The merchandise was held to have been properly classified under the provision in paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897, for bleached hat braids of straw. (T. D. 25972.) No. 4396.-LEATHER GLOVES-CUMULATIVE DUTY.-Protest 86647 f, etc., of George E. Field against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The protests were overruled on the authority of Douillet v. United States (T. D. 25811), where it was held that more than one of the cumulative duties provided in paragraph 445, tariff act of 1897, could be assessed on leather gloves. No. 4397.-LENTISCUM.-Protest 93360ƒ of Stamford Manufacturing Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. Certain lentiscum was held to be free of duty under paragraph 482, tariff act of 1897, as a crude article used in dyeing or tanning. Leber v. United States (T. D. 25786) followed. No. 4398.-ARTIFICIAL FRUIT-COMMISSIONS.-Protest 15090 h of George J. Kraft against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The Board held that an item of commission paid by the importer to his own agent was not a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise, as claimed by the importer. Another contention by the importer as to certain artificial fruit was overruled on the authority of G. A. 4973 (T. D. 23197). No. 4399.-OIL OF ROSE-RHODINOL."-Protests 127424, etc., of Fries Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. So-called rhodinol, more generally known as synthetic oil of rose, was held to be free of duty under paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 5732 (T. D. 25438) followed. No. 4400.-LIQUID ALBUMEN.-Protest 127471 of Lachmann & Jacobi against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. Protest overruled on authority of Abstract 1777 (T. D. 25361), relating to liquid albumen. No. 4401.-Weight of FISH IN BRINE.--Protest 135909 of Thomas Woodward & Son against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. The Board sustained the importers' contention that the dutiable weight of fish in brine should include the weight of the fish only, excluding the brine. No. 4402.-WEIGHT OF FISH IN BRINE.-Protest 139291 of Thomas Woodward & Son. Same as No. 4401 (supra). (T. D. 25972.) No. 4403.-LEAF TOBACCO.-Protest 141757 of John W. Merriam & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. The Board found the following percentages of filler tobacco: Bales 611 and 612, 88: bale 613, 90; bale 617, 100. No. 4404.-LEAF TOBACCO.-Protest 143457 of B. Castellano & Co. Same as No. 4403 (supra). Bale 5, 88; bale 6, 87; bale 7, 90. No. 4405.-LEAF TOBACCO.-Protest 143789 of B. Castellano. Same as No. 4403 (supra). Bale 52, 87; bale 59, 96; bale 60, 100; bale 61, 95. No. 4406.-LEAF TOBACCo.-Protest 144298 of Rodriguez & Teijeiro. Same as No. 4403 (supra). Bales 1, 14, 25, 33, 45, and 61, 88; bales 9, 37, 53, 55, 57, and 59,90; bales 29 and 56, 92; bales 21 and 62, 94; bales 16 and 49, 95; bale 54, 87; bales 7 and 58, 100. Bales 4 and 41 were found to be composed of wrapper tobacco only. No. 4407.-PROTESTS UNSUPPORTED.-Protests 135530, etc., of B. Altman & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests overruled on account of insufficient evidence. No. 4408.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 137558 of Schieffelin & Co. Same as No. 4407 (supra). No. 4409.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.- Protest 138346 of Peter Woll & Sons Manufacturing Company. Same as No. 4407 (supra). No. 4410.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 137590 of Thomas Woodward & Son. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. Same as No. 4407 (supra). No. 4411.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 49574 ƒ of A. J. Hague & Co. Before Same as No. 4407 (supra). Opinion by No. 4412.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 40988 a of Stearns & Spingarn. Before No. 4413.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 113001 of Schall & Co. Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Same as No. 4407 (supra). No. 4414.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 133700, etc., of Joseph Koehler et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), January 13, 1905. Protests abandoned; overruled. |