(T. D. 31936.)

Customs regulations amended.

Articles 1522, 1523, and 1524 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, relative to the comparison of classifications and appraisements made at various ports, amended.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 21, 1911.

To collectors and other officers of the customs:

The work heretofore done by the Board of United States General Appraisers in connection with the comparison of the classifications and appraisements of imported merchandise at the various ports, under the provisions of articles 1522, 1523, and 1524 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, will hereafter be performed by the appraiser's office at the port of New York. Said articles 1522, 1523, and 1524 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 are therefore hereby amended to take effect November 1, 1911, so as to read as follows:

ART. 1522.-Forwarding sample labels and samples to the United States appraiser at New York.-The appraiser, or, if there be no appraiser, the collector or surveyor at each port of entry or delivery, will forward by mail to the appraiser at New York at the close of each day, week, or month, as hereinafter provided, a sample label on Form No. 6431, covering each article of merchandise passed during that day, week, or month, as the case may be, except articles in the following list:

Ores; coal; sugar and molasses; salt; lumber, including clapboards and shingles; cattle, swine, horses, mules, and sheep; grains which are subject to a specific duty; hay and straw; butter, cheese, milk, cream and eggs; vegetables in their natural state; fruits in their natural state; bacon and hams and fresh meats; poultry; woodpulp; hides of cattle; coffee; ice; raw furs; tea; articles covered by paragraphs 492, 493, 500, 516, 520, 648, 652, and 709.

Samples of the merchandise should accompany the sample label whenever practicable. However, after so reporting the first importation samples and sample labels need not be forwarded oftener than once in three months for subsequent importations identical in quality, material, and entered and appraised values.

In districts where there are subports each subport shall report on such forms to the appraiser or collector at the port of entry for that district, who will promptly examine, correct, and forward the same to the appraiser at New York.

The object of furnishing such samples and sample labels is to provide a check against undervaluations and erroneous classifications, and to avoid discrepancies in the appraisement and classification of identical merchandise, at the various ports.

The present supply of form Catalogue No. 6431 will be used until it is exhausted, but officers forwarding the same will enter in the column therein provided for remarks:

(1) A statement of the quality, grade, manufacturer's mark, number, and the brand of the merchandise, and any other facts necessary to identify the merchandise.

(2) The number of pounds, yards, dozens, etc., on the invoice.

(3) The name of the manufacturer, where the same differs from the name of the person invoicing the merchandise and is known or can be ascertained.

Where no transactions in relation to the appraisement or classification of merchandise subsequent to the previous report by sample label have occurred, except as to such identical importations, a type of which has already been so reported, the collector and other principal officer of the customs will report on Catalogue No. 6439, as heretofore, except that this form will be addressed to the United States appraiser at New York instead of the Board of General Appraisers. ART. 1523.-Ports classified for daily, weekly, and monthly reports.— The following ports will forward such samples or labels daily: Albany, Baltimore, Bangor, Boston, Bridgeport, Buffalo, Burlington (Vt.), Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Corpus Christi, Dayton, Denver, Detroit, Eagle Pass, El Paso, Galveston, Grand Rapids, Great Falls, Hartford, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Key West, Los Angeles, Louisville, Marquette, Milwaukee, Mobile, Newark, New Bedford, New Haven, New Orleans, Newport (Vt.), Newport News, Niagara Falls, Nogales, Ogdensburg, Oswego, Pembina, Perth Amboy, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Plattsburg, Port Huron, Portland (Me.), Portland (Oreg.), Port Townsend, Providence, Rochester, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, Springfield, St. Louis, St. Paul, Tampa, Toledo, Washington.

The following ports will forward such samples and sample labels or reports weekly: Atlanta, Cape Vincent, Charleston, Columbus, Brownsville, Des Moines, Duluth, Eastport (Me.), Gloucester, Houston, Jacksonville, Houlton, Juneau, Lincoln, Memphis, Newport (R. I.), Norfolk, Omaha, Peoria, Petersburg, Richmond, Savannah, St. Joseph, Sandusky, Syracuse, Wilmington (Del.)

All other ports will forward such samples or sample labels or reports monthly.

ART. 1524.—Action by the appraiser at New York on the samples and sample labels.-Such samples and sample labels will be carefully compared by the appraising officers at New York with those covering

identical or similar merchandise received from other ports and also with the classification and appraisement of identical or similar merchandise passed at that port. Any discrepancy found in the classification or appraisement of identical or similar merchandise will be made the subject of correspondence between the United States appraiser at New York and the customs officers reporting the same, and if an agreement can not readily be reached by correspondence as to the correct appraisement or classification, the matter will be submitted to the department for a decision.

The United States appraiser at New York will report to the department each month all discrepancies in the appraisement and classification noted by him, and the action taken thereon, for such further action as the department may deem necessary.

JAMES F. CURTIS, Acting Secretary.

(T. D. 31937.)

Chlorine with synthetic indigo.

Appeal directed from board's decision August 14, 1911, Abstract 26344 (T. D. 31832), involving the classification of merchandise reported by the appraiser to consist of a combination of chlorine with synthetic indigo.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 21, 1911. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 17th instant relative to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of August 14, 1911, Abstract 26344 (T. D. 31832), involving the classification of merchandise reported by the appraiser to consist of a combination of chlorine with synthetic indigo, on which duty was assessed at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 15 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, as a coal-tar color, and which was held by the board to be properly dutiable under paragraph 25 of the said act at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound as indigo paste.

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.

Respectfully,
(91797.)

Hon. WM. L. WEMPLE,

Assistant Attorney General, New York.

JAMES F. CURTIS,
Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 31938.)

Labels for hand baggage.

Gummed labels for hand baggage of passengers crossing border not to be pasted across opening.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 23, 1911. SIR: In view of the numerous complaints and protests against the attaching of the gummed labels provided for in T. D. 31582 of May 12, 1911, over the opening of hand baggage, the said decision is hereby amended and modified so as to require that the label shall be pasted on the baggage at a suitable place other than over the opening, and the legend on the label is hereby changed to read as follows:

This label should be pasted on hand baggage only. It does not insure passage of the baggage without examination at the place of return into the United States if the 'customs officers deem examination necessary.

Respectfully,
(79100.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Detroit, Mich.

JAMES F. CURTIS,
Assistant Secretary.

(T. D. 31939-G. A. 7287.)

Mesh bags and parts of, composed wholly of silver.

* *

*

Mesh bags and parts thereof, composed wholly of silver, are dutiable as "finished or unfinished bags, or parts thereof, made in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver," under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, the words "in chief value of” applying to the mesh and not to the completed article.

United States General Appraisers, New York, October 18, 1911.

In the matter of protest 407103, of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher 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).

SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: The appraiser reports that the merchandise in question consists of hand bags, finished and unfinished, made in chief value of metal mesh composed of sterling silver, and valued at over $2 per dozen pieces. The importer produced a sample which consists of silver mesh suitable for use in the manufacture of a mesh bag. Duty was assessed on the merchandise at rates equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem under the provisions in paragraph 448, act of 1909, for

Finished or unfinished bags, purses and other articles, or parts thereof, made in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver, valued at two dollars per

*

*

*

The claim principally relied upon by the importer is that the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 199 as

Articles or wares not specially provided for in this section, composed wholly or in * * * silver, * * part of * and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem.

Counsel for the importer, in his brief, claims that the merchandise is not covered by paragraph 448, because it is composed entirely of silver; that the provisions for mesh bags and parts thereof in that paragraph include only such bags or parts as are in chief value of silver, etc.; and that the intent of Congress is plainly indicated as including in that part of the paragraph in question only such bags, purses, and other articles or parts thereof which are made of metal mesh composed of two or more materials of which silver represents the component of chief value. It is quite apparent that counsel for the importers misapprehended the scope of the provisions of paragraph 448 with regard to the merchandise in question. The words "made in chief value of metal mesh" apply to "bags, purses, and other articles," while the words "composed of silver," etc., apply to the mesh and not to the completed articles. Mesh bags and purses are made by attaching the mesh to a solid frame, and to bring these articles within the terms of the paragraph the mesh must be of more value than the other parts of the articles. A mesh bag or purse composed of a gold frame or a silver frame set with precious stones, or any frame of more value than the mesh, would not fall for duty under paragraph 448; but were such not the case the importer's contention could not be upheld.

A case involving the same principle of law now contended for on behalf of the importers was decided adversely to the importers by this board In re Cauvigny Brush Co., in G. A. 7022 (T. D. 30634), which decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Customis Appeals (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 118; T. D. 31118). In that case the merchandise consisted of articles composed wholly of celluloid, and the importers claimed that as paragraph 17 provides only for articles of which collodion, pyroxylin, or celluloid, etc., is the component of chief value, the merchandise, which consisted wholly of celluloid, was not dutiable thereunder. In the decision of that case we said:

We are not greatly impressed with this argument. Articles composed wholly of collodion are composed in chief value of that substance within the common understanding and in accordance with the well-known principle that the greater includes the less; and if it can not be shown with reasonable certainty that Congress intended the phrase "articles composed in chief value of collodion" should have a restricted meaning different from the common understanding of the import of the words, we must conclude that the articles here in dispute are included in that provision.

Following the ruling in the above-cited decision, we hold that the silver mesh bags and parts thereof in the case at bar are made in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver, and, upon the authority of G. A. 7129 (T. D. 31089), we overrule the protest, the collector's decision being affirmed.