ever, show that the metal decorations are about 70 per cent of the value of the porcelain. This, it will be observed, is a very considerable part of the article itself, and can hardly be ignored in determining the dutiable status of the goods. This metal part seems to have been designed entirely for the articles with which it was imported, and from the records and testimony in the case we gather that it is useless for any other purpose than the decoration of the articles for which it was designed. On the other hand, the porcelain might be used separately; but the importers have seen fit to import them together. They were intended to be used together, and we are constrained to hold that the two taken together, in each instance, should be considered as an entirety. That being determined, we think the case should be governed by the sofa case, so called. We therefore hold these goods should be dutiable as decorated china, as assessed, and overrule the protest. No. 26799.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 499767 of Redden & Martin (Newark), and protest 501536 of Lord Bros. & Co. (Portland, Me.). Opinions by Waite, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 26800.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 519738 of Spencer Importing & Trading Co. (New York), protests 463561, etc., of Southern Bagging Co. (Norfolk), and protest 465684 of J. J. Buchey & Co., and protest 466679 of O. G. Hempstead & Son (Philadelphia). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 1, OCTOBER 5, 1911. No. 26801.-POCKET TOILETS.-Protest 453703 of American Thermo-Ware Co. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. The board sustained the importers' claim that pocket toilets were dutiable as manufactures of glass or paste under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, the collector expressing willingness to reliquidate accordingly in view of Abstract 22695 (T. D. 30356). No. 26802.-ROSARIES.-Protest 389477 of J. A. Jacques (Boston). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest sustained as to rosaries on the authority of G. A. 7053 (T. D. 30731.) No. 26803.-ARTICLES OF PERSONAL ADORNMENT-ARTICLES OF UTILITY-SMOKERS' ARTICLES.-Protests 423270, etc., of J. W. Hampton, jr., & Co. et al., and protest 417344 of H. Wolff & Co. (New York), and protest 488265 of Kaufmann Bros. (Pittsburgh). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A. Cigarette cases composed of metal and brass, respectively, and ladies' gun-metal mesh bags, classified as articles of personal adornment under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be dutiable as smokers' articles (par. 475) and manufactures of metal (par. 199). Protests sustained on the authority of G. A. 7129 (T. D. 31089). No. 26804.-WOODEN BOXES-THERMOMETERS.-Protest 460523 of P. H. Petry Co. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Empty wooden boxes inadvertently classified as articles of cut glass under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of wood (par. 215), as claimed by the importers. The board sustained a further claim that thermometers in chief value of paper were dutiable as manufactures of paper (par. 420) rather than as articles of cut glass (par. 98). No. 26805.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 474404, etc., and protests 512183, etc., of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, and protests 33361f, etc., of H. Wolff & Co. et al. (New York), and protest 488254 of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 26806. WILLOW BASKETS.-Protests 504796-37687, etc., of American Shipping Co. (Chicago). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests sustained as to willow baskets on the authority of Brody v. United States (T. D. 31573). No. 26807.-SOYA-BEAN OIL.-Protest 489693 of Swan & Finch Co. (New York). MCCLELLAND, General Appraiser: The merchandise, the classification of which is involved in this protest, was invoiced as "unrefined Manchu oil crushed from soya beans," and was returned by the appraiser as poppy seed oil. The collector assessed duty at the rate of 15 cents per gallon under the provisions of paragraph 35 of the tariff act of 1909, and the protest claim is that it is exempt from duty under paragraph 639 of said act. From the testimony in the case, especially that part of it which is of a scientific nature, it is difficult to determine whether the merchandise is poppy-seed oil or soyabean oil, for from the figures given it is apparent that there is practically no difference between the specific gravity, iodine number, and saponification value of these two commodities, and commercial witnesses say the distinction between the two is determinable from smell, appearance, color, and the drying tests; but the only one of these tests which we think we are justified in accepting as being reliable is the drying test, and we accept it as a fact proved that soya-bean oil will not dry upon merely being exposed to the air. It is simply a question of whether the weight of evidence on behalf of protestants is such as to overcome the presumption of regularity which attaches to the collector's classification and the supporting testimony of the official chemist, and we find as a fact that it does. In any event, it is a wellsettled rule that if there be doubt it must be resolved in favor of the importer, and we therefore hold that the merchandise is entitled to free entry. The protest is sustained and the decision of the collector reversed. No. 26808.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 501247, etc., of Ernest L. Rhodes & Co. (Atlanta). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 26809.-ARTICLES OF PERSONAL ADORNMENT-SMOKERS' ARTICLES.-Protest 476353 of A. J. Dale (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Cigarette cases composed of brass and gun metal, respectively, and classified as articles of personal adornment under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as smokers' articles (par. 475), as claimed by the importer. G. A. 7102 (T. D. 30942) and Knauth v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 334; T. D. 31432) followed. No. 26810.-LANOLIN-MEDICINAL PREPARATION.-Protests 417536, etc., of Lehn & Fink et al. (New York). Lanolin, a product of wool grease, classified as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as refined wool grease (par. 290). Protests overruled. CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraiser: * * Lanolin has been the subject of decision both by the board and the courts, and it has always been held to be classifiable for duty purposes as a medicinal preparation. Movius v. United States (66 Fed. Rep., 734), G. A. 5881 (T. D. 25910), and Zinkeisen v. United States (167 Fed. Rep., 312; T. D. 29546). The record in the cases at bar does not, in our opinion, warrant us in reversing the former findings of the board and the courts. We find the merchandise to be a medicinal preparation, not a refined wool grease, and hold it dutiable as assessed. * * * No. 26811.-Kippered HERRING.-Protest 480117 of M. A. Newmark & Co. (Los Angeles) and protest 385817 of L. E. Doudiet & Co. (Minneapolis). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests sustained as to kippered herring on the authority of United States v. Rosenstein (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304; T. D. 31357). No. 26812.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 500325-37178 of P. V. Bright Brokerage Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protest overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 2, OCTOBER 5, 1911. No. 26813.-KNITTING MACHINES-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protests 476522, etc., of P. C. Kuyper & Co. (New York). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The articles we have here before us are knitting machines either intended for power or hand motion. These machines perform the ordinary operation of knitting in the manufacture of knitted articles and fabrics. Duty was assessed on the merchandise at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and it is claimed dutiable properly at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 197 of said act as machine tools. As commonly spoken of, we believe there is no doubt that these articles are machines rather than machine tools. A knitting machine involves the manipulation of yarns or threads whereby fabrics or articles are made, and differs from the machines used in weaving and braiding in that it constructs a looped fabric as distinguished from one that is braided or formed from warp and weft threads. If these knitting machines are to be regarded as falling within the common understanding of the term "machine tool," then it is evident to us that looms and other machines in which yarn or thread is woven or manipulated would have to be likewise considered. As we view the conclusion reached by the United States Court of Customs Appeals in the Myers case (T. D. 31260), these machines are not machine tools either within the meaning of the term as technically understood or within its broad meaning referred to in the said case as applicable to "tools," which, while they still remain tools within the definitions given by the lexicographers, partake of the character of machinery by reason of the power and principle applied. These machines are not such as are used in workshops for planing, drilling, sawing, etc., nor are they tools as distinguished from machines. We hereby affirm the collector's assessments. The protests are overruled. No. 26814.-PARTS OF PRINTING MACHINES-MACHINE TOOLS.--Protest 484705 of Charles A. Johnson & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Certain steel parts of printing machines, invoiced as "doctors," and described by the appraiser as pieces of steel from 42 to 46 inches long, 2 to 3 inches wide, and ranging in thickness from 18 to 26 gauge, which were classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be dutiable as machine tools (par. 197). Protest overruled. No. 26815.-MACHINES FOR SEWING KNITTED GOODS-SEWING MACHINES.-Protests 478599, etc., of P. C. Kuyper & Co. (New York). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The articles here in question are machines that are used to sew parts of knit fabrics together. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of metal, not specially provided for, and the said machines are claimed dutiable properly at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 197 of said act, as sewing machines. The machines here in question perform the work of sewing knitted fabrics together by use of a sewing mechanism using an ordinary lock stitch. There are two styles of the machine referred to in the record. The one is a lock-stitch seaming machine, and the other a combined two-thread circular lock-stitch linking and point-seaming machine. The work performed is the sewing of fabrics together by the use of a needle and hook, forming a chain stitch. In G. A. 7225 (T. D. 31623), the board held that the term "sewing machines" covered the various styles of machines used to make a stitch which fastened together fabrics or material for manufacturing purposes, and was not to be limited to machines such as were constructed only for family or domestic sewing purposes. We believe these machines here in question come fairly within that ruling, and we sustain the claim in the protests under paragraph 197, and modify the decisions of the collector accordingly. No. 26816.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 208271, etc., of Kern, Loewi & Mendel et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 26817.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 463253, etc., of Lefcourt & Schulhof et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 3, OCTOBER 5, 1911. No. 26818.-MODELS OF INVENTIONS-HYDRAULIC MOTOR AND PUMP.-Protest 481831 of A. K. Baylor (New York). WAITE, General Appraiser: The goods in this case are described in the invoice as a hydraulic motor and one pump for motor car, with the necessary pipes, connections, and attachments. It was assessed for duty under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, which provides for manufactures of metal. It is claimed by the importer to be free of duty under paragraph 629, which reads as follows: 629. Models of inventions and of other improvements in the arts, to be used exclusively as models and incapable of any other use. Some testimony was taken in this case on behalf of the importer, and we quote the following from the record of his testimony: Q. What did that shipment consist of in its entirety?-A. Consisted of the pump at one end and the motor at the other end and connecting pipes for passing oil between the two. Q. In other words, all the parts formed one complete model?-A. One complete demonstration; yes, sir. Q. Is there anything in relation to the weight and size or any other factors of the model as imported which renders it unfit for actual use in a motor car to-day?-A. Yes; it is crude and heavy, and is not even applicable to a motor car; that is to say, you can not put it in a motor car. I take it you understand such matters. The first thing that takes place to justify a new apparatus is to find out the idea involved in the inventor's mind, to show the principles laid out. Having studied the possibili ties of this thing, the next step is to produce something which will actually work, and it is almost always the case that the first produced apparatus is an experimental device to prove the principle. Q. Is that adaptation or importation such device?-A. As it is here it is such, yes. Q. Will the resultant machine as developed be identical with that imported? A. Oh, not at all; will be entirely different. From the above we gather that this is not a model, neither is it to be used exclusively as a model. It is an arrangement of parts in the form of an engine and pump used for the purpose of demonstrating a principle which is to be afterwards applied and utilized through a different machine. We conclude it is not such an article as is covered by paragraph 629, and therefore overrule the protest. (T. D. 31913.) Bushel of apples. Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of August 14, 1911, Abstract 26351 (T. D. 31832), involving the question as to what constitutes a "bushel" of apples. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 10, 1911. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, inviting attention to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of August 14, 1911, Abstract 26351 (T. D. 31832), involving the question as to what constitutes a "bushel" of apples for dutiable purposes. In view of the importance of the issue, you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the said decision, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 29 of section 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. Respectfully, Hon. WM. L. WEMPLE, R. O. BAILEY, Assistant Attorney General, New York. (T. D. 31914.) Drawback on wall coverings. Drawback on wall coverings manufactured by the Pacific Mills, of Lawrence, Mass., with the use of imported burlap. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 13, 1911. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on wall coverings manufactured by the Pacific Mills, of Lawrence, Mass., with the use of imported burlap. |