of treatment purely incidental to the forging and not designed to advance the product beyond the forging stage." We note the following excerpts from the opinion in that case:

With the development of improved methods and high-class machinery it was found that more economical, better, and speedier results could be achieved by not trying to forge close or to remove in the forge shop surplus metal from places not readily accessible.

Rough turning or rough machining is more a substituted than an additional process and has for its aim rather the finishing of the forging than the completion of the article to be evolved from the forging.

It may be said, therefore, that rough machining or rough turning does the work of close forging and accomplishes its objects by less costly and tedious means.

A forging, as now commonly understood, may therefore be defined to be a creation of forging processes, an article of metal shaped or formed by hammering or by allied methods producing substantially the same results as hammering.

We conclude that the work performed on these metal hoes was not other than forging work; that they have not been advanced by processes other than forging, and that they are entitled to classification as "forgings" under paragraph 123.

The protest is sustained, and the decision of the collector is modified accordingly.

(T. D. 31741-G. A. 7244.)

MELTED AND MOLDED AMBER.

Amberoid.

Refuse pieces of amber melted and molded into shapes to be used for making mouthpieces for pipes and cigar holders are free of duty as amberoid under paragraph 488 of the tariff act of 1909.

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 8, 1911.

In the matter of protest 459267-35760 of M. Linkman & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago.

Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers). HAY, General Appraiser: The merchandise which is the subject of this protest is described by the appraiser in his report to the collector as "amber pressed into shapes to be used for pipe mouthpieces" and was assessed for duty as a manufacture of amber under paragraph 462 of the tariff act of 1909. It is claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 488, which paragraph reads as follows:

Par. 488. Amber, and amberoid, unmanufactured, or crude gum, gum Kauri, and gum Copal.

The contention of the importers is that the merchandise in question is amberoid, an article specifically enumerated in this paragraph of the law. Counsel for the Government meets this contention by the argument that the merchandise in question being molded into the shape and form of mouthpieces for cigar holders and pipes is a partially manufactured article, and bence is excluded from this paragraph

of the law. An examination of the samples introduced in evidence would seem to justify the claim of the Government were it not for the fact that we think that paragraph 488 makes express provision for the articles in question. These articles are pieces of amber in the shape and form of pipe or cigar-holder mouthpieces, it being apparently necessary only to bore a hole through them and fit them to the pipe or cigar holder. The testimony, however, shows that they are made of refuse pieces of amber, melted and molded into the shape in which they are before us, and the marks of the mold may be seen upon the samples.

"Amberoid" is apparently a word coined for the express purpose of designating articles of this character, and, while the articles in question have passed through a stage of manufacture, it is only such manufacture as is necessary to constitute amberoid under the meaning of this word as we gather it, not only from the testimony, but from the dictionaries. The testimony is that amberoid is pieces of amber melted and molded into shapes and forms. In the Standard Dictionary the word is spelled ambroid, and is defined as "A reconstructed amber made by heating and uniting by pressure fragments of amber." The earlier editions of the Century Dictionary do not contain the word at all, but in the edition of 1909 it is, under the spelling ambroid, defined: "A trade name for a substance made from inferior pieces of amber." Amberoid is therefore amber melted and molded, and the character of the shape or form of the mold could not change or alter its condition as amberoid. We therefore reach the conclusion that the articles in question are specifically made free of duty under paragraph 488.

The protest is sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.

(T. D. 31742-G. A. 7245.)

Hat sweats.

*

*

Pieces of leather dressed and finished, cut to size and shape, adapted for immediate insertion into men's hats as hat sweats, are completed manufactured articles and not dutiable under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, as "leather cut into * forms, suitable for conversion into manufactured articles." Held, there being no eo nomine provision for hat sweats in the act of 1909, that such articles are dutiable under paragraph 452 of said act as manufactures of leather.

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 8, 1911.

In the matter of protests 493836, etc., of M. J. Corbett & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: The appraiser in his special report on these protests states of the merchandise that-

It is made from hat-sweat leather that has been dressed and finished, being cut to the size and shape so as to adapt it for immediate use in the insertion of men's hats

and duty was assessed at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 452 of the tariff act of 1909. The following alternative claims for rates of duty other than that assessed are made in the protests:

(1) Five per cent as band leather under paragraph 451.

(2) Fifteen per cent as sheepskins dressed and finished under paragraph 451.

(3) Five per cent as "skins for morocco" under paragraph 451. (4) Seven and one-half per cent under paragraph 450.

(5) The rates claimed above and in addition thereto 10 per cent under the proviso in said paragraph 451.

We think it may be said that in the record the description of the merchandise above quoted is accurate and is not disputed, except in so far as it describes the leather as being adapted "for immediate use in the insertion of men's hats."

The issue is whether the pieces of leather thus described are in fact hat sweats ready for use. If so, duty was unquestionably properly assessed, for, since there is no eo nomine provision in the tariff act for hat sweats, it would follow that if thus complete these sweats would be classifiable under the general provision for manufactures of leather. It is not seriously disputed, if at all, that these leathers are cut to designs that adapt them only for use as hat sweats. In fact, it is shown beyond question that they are adapted to no other use.

* * *

The contention of the importers is that the cutting into forms, which has adapted these leathers for use as hat sweats, makes them classifiable under the proviso in paragraph 451 for "leather cut into forms, suitable for conversion into manufactured articles," but this contention can not prevail if it be the fact that, in their present condition, these pieces of leather are actually ready for use, and such as are in a general way used as hat sweats.

It is evident that hat sweats are used which show varied styles of finish, but the testimony in this case shows that a perfectly plain hat sweat is very generally used in the manufacture of the cheaper grade of hats.

In Abstract 24415 (T. D. 31146) the board passed upon a somewhat similar question, but involving leathers of a higher degree of finish than those in the case at bar. In that case, among other things, we said:

It is not disputed that the strips of leather in question are known in trade and bought and sold under the name of "hat sweats." The samples clearly indicate that they are specially prepared for use as such. They are in condition ready for insertion into hats, subject only to adjustment as to length. The mere fact that for high-grade hats such leathers may be embellished otherwise than are the goods in question does not alter the fact that these hat sweats are manufactured articles having a recognized name other than the material from which they are made and a special use.

It is in evidence here that as large a proportion as 50 per cent of all the hat sweats used in the making of hats in the United States are no further advanced than those under consideration, and we think that the evidence shows a clear preponderance, both in character and weight, in support of the collector's classification.

We therefore find as a fact that the leathers in question are finished hat sweats adaptable to use as such in the condition as imported, and we hold them to be subject to duty as assessed.

(T. D. 31743-G. A. 7246.)

1. KROMOLINE-GREASE-FISH OIL.

Kromoline.

The article dealt in under the trade name of "kromoline," being a mixture of mineral oil, fish or vegetable oils, and other substances, is not an alizarin assistant, an acid, or any one of the soluble greases provided for in paragraph 32, tariff act of 1909. Nor is such a mixture a fish oil and therefore within the exception in paragraph 580 of said act.

2. SAME "FIT ONLY FOR SUCH USE."

To prove the mere fact that kromoline might be used for purposes other than stuffing or dressing leather is not sufficient to establish that practically it is fitted for any other use. "Fit only for such use" must be given a practical meaning. 3. SAME GREASE OIL.

* *

Kromoline is a grease or oil "commonly used * * for stuffing or dressing leather, and * fit only for such use," and is entitled to free entry under paragraph 580, tariff act of 1909.

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 8, 1911.

In the matter of protests 523796, etc., of 1. Levinstein & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs of the port of Boston.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers).

MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: The issue in this case is whether an article sold under the trade name of "kromoline" shall pay duty at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 32 of the tariff act of 1909 for “all soluble greases used in the processes of softening, dyeing, or finishing, not specially provided for in this section," or be admitted to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 580, which reads

Grease, fats, vegetable tallow, and oils (excepting fish oils), such as are commonly used in soap making or in wire drawing, or for stuffing or dressing leather, and which are fit only for such uses, and not specially provided for in this section

or, alternatively, pay duty at one of the rates claimed in the protest other than that assessed.

The issue has been exhaustively tried out, and the record evidence is consequently voluminous.

Affirmatively, the protestant has sought to establish that the merchandise is a grease the only practical use of which is in the stuffing and dressing of leather, and it may in fact be said that no effort was made to sustain any of the claims made in the protests except that for free entry under paragraph 580, supra. As against this effort the Government has endeavored to establish two facts, viz, 1, that kromoline is a fish oil; 2, that it is adapted to uses other than those mentioned in paragraph 580.

It follows, of course, that if the Government has succeeded in proving either one or both of these facts the protestant company can not succeed, inasmuch as fish oils are exempted from the provisions of paragraph 580, and free entry may only be extended to those commodities which are commonly used and fitted only for one of the uses therein specified.

Kromoline is shown to be a comparatively new article. It was unknown to the commerce of the United States at the time of the enactment of the present tariff law, August 5, 1909. Apparently it is, in part at least, the product of a secret process of manufacture, but it is disclosed in the record that the basic material thereof is oil recovered from leather by a system of degreasing through the use of a naphtha solvent. Such degreasing is a necessary process in the making of certain leathers, as, for instance, patent leathers. The origin of such recovered oil is undeterminable for the reason that upon its introduction into the leather it undergoes a chemical change, and for the further reason that in the process of manufacture of kromoline it undergoes another such change.

From statements of analyses of kromoline appearing in evidence it is shown that its iodine value is from 70 to 71, its saponification value 88, and its specific gravity from 0.95 to 0.96, and that it is miscible. in water, while like statements of analyses of fish oils show the iodine value thereof to be 130 to 160, saponification value 176 to 192, specific gravity 0.91 to 0.93, and not miscible in water.

Among other differences between kromoline and fish oils shown in the record are that fish oils are actually used for the following purposes, . ., making of paints and varnishes, tempering of steel, making of soft soap and tanning of leather, while kromoline can not be practically put to either of these uses. Fish oils actually mix with linseed oil in paint making, but kromoline can not be permanently so mixed.

Discussion of fish oils hardly seems warranted, however, for it at once appears that the merchandise is neither a particular kind of fish oil nor a combination of fish oils. The purpose of the Government to bring this article within the exception in paragraph 580, supra, may be said to be "far-fetched" indeed, for the very most that can be said of it is that it contains a fraction of oil of doubtful origin that may or