No. 32828.—Fur Hats-Scarf and Muff.-Protest 613192-41351 of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Ladies' trimmed hats composed in chief value of fur, classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable under paragraph 446. A fur scarf and muff were held dutiable under paragraph 439, as claimed. No. 32829.-EDGINGS AND INSERTINGS-BRAIDS.-Protests 650365-42579, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Edgings and laces classified under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be commercially known as braids, dutiable under paragraph 349. Protests overruled on the authority of G. A. 7339 (T. D. 32330). No. 32830.-UNTRIMMED STRAW HATS.-Protest 297239-26601 of Theodore Ascher Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Untrimmed straw hats composed of horsehair and straw, classified under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, were found to be in chief value of straw, dutiable under paragraph 409. Protest overruled for the reason that the correct claim was not made. No. 32831.-SILK TRIMMINGS-RAMIE TISSUE.-Protests 519348-38563, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to merchandise classified as silk trimmings under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909. Ramie tissue classified as vegetable fiber trimmings under paragraph 349 was held dutiable as manufactures of ramie (par. 358). Vegetable fiber trimmings were held dutiable under paragraph 349. Manila hemp bands were held dutiable as natural under paragraph 422. G. A. 7372 (T. D. 32583) followed as to hoods composed of ramie braids. No. 32832.-IMITATION HORSEHAIR BRAIDS-RAMIE BRAIDS.-Protests 49290936903, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Eckstein (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 75; T. D. 32354) imitation horsehair braids were held dutiable under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909, as assessed. G. A. 7372 (T. D. 32583) followed as to ramie braids classified under paragraph 349. No. 32833.-RAMIE BRAIDS-PLATEAUX.-Protests 560804-38934, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to ramie braids classified as vegetable fiber braids under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133) followed as to plateaux in strips composed in chief value of manila hemp. Horsehair braids held properly classified under paragraph 349. No. 32834.-HORSEHAIR PLATEAUX.-Protests 674627-43357, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. United States v. Buss (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 87; T. D. 32357) followed as to horsehair plateaux classified under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled. No. 32835.-FIGURED COTTON CLOTH.-Protest 313667 of W. O. Horn & Bro. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. G. A. 6956 (T. D. 30206) and United States v. Rusch (167 Fed., 523; T. D. 29506) followed as to figured cotton cloth. Protest sustained. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 23, 1913. The appended decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is published for the information of customs officers and others concerned. JAMES F. CURTIS, Assistant Secretary. (T. D. 33579.) Tea board. MACY v. LOEB. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. June 10, 1913. ON motion for an injunction. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF TEA BOARD. A tea board composed of two members concededly designated according to law, and of a third member designated by the Secretary of the Treasury at another time, held regularly appointed. [Denied.] COXE, Circuit Judge: This a motion for an injunction enjoining the defendant and his successors in office from interfering with or destroying the teas described in the amended bill of complaint. These teas were involved in the appeal recently decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals (T. D. 33538), in which that court affirmed an order denying a similar application. The court held that Congress has the power to exclude all teas or to admit them under any regulations, however arbitrary. The court says: By the act the whole matter is turned over to the administrative officers, with no review of the facts by the court. This decision was intended to be a final adjudication of the controversy, but it is again brought to the attention of the court upon facts alleged to be new, but which were or might have been known to the complainants when the original bill was filed. It is now asserted that the board of appraisers which passed upon the protests of the complainants was not designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, as the law directs. It is conceded that Appraisers Howell and McClelland were so designated, but it is contended that Appraiser Chamberlain was not. The papers presented by the defendant show that in June, 1908, General Appraisers Howell, Sharretts, and McClelland were designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as the Tea Board. The fact that the letter to the president of the board announcing the designation was signed by the Assistant Secretary is wholly immaterial. It might have been signed by a clerk in the department as well. It was merely a notification to the board of the action of the Treasury Department. On July 2, 1909, General Appraisers Somerville, Chamberlain, and Fischer were designated as a tea board during the temporary absence of the regular tea board. On August 18, 1909, the three appraisers who acted on the tea in question were assigned to the tea board by a designation signed by Marion De Vries, president of the Board of General Appraisers. We have, then, a tea board composed of members, two of whom were concededly designated according to law and a third member who was designated a member of a tea board by the Secretary at another time. There is also an assignment to the tea board signed by the president of the Board of General Appraisers of the three members who passed upon the tea in question. There can be no dispute as to a majority of the board being regularly appointed, and the presumption is that all were regularly appointed. The statement in the affidavit of William Dallas that he saw the samples submitted to the board and that they were not sealed is inconsequential. He does not say that they were not sealed when transmitted to the board, but that they were not sealed when he saw them. Let it be conceded that the law in question is harsh, drastic, and unilateral, it certainly can not be criticized for ambiguity. There is no doubt as to its meaning; if doubt existed it has been set at rest by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit. The complainants have shown great ingenuity in delaying the action of the law, and if their tea is destroyed they have only themselves to blame. The courts can not aid them, but it is by no means certain that, even at this late day, they may not be permitted to remove their tea by proper application to executive officers of the Government. The motion for an injunction is denied. (T. D. 33580.) Drawback on towels. Drawback on union huck towels manufactured by the Lowell Textile Co., of North Chelmsford, Mass., with the use of imported bleached and unbleached flax yarn in conjunction with domestic materials. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 25, 1913. 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 union huck towels manufactured by the Lowell Textile Co., of North Chelmsford, Mass., with the use of imported bleached and unbleached flax yarn in conjunction with domestic materials. A manufacturing record shall be kept, which will show, in addition to the usual data, the quantity of imported flax yarn used in the manufacture of each lot of towels for exportation with benefit of drawback, the number of towels of each size and style produced, the quantity of waste, the value of such waste, and the value of the imported material used. An abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported flax yarn used in the manufacture of the exported towels as shown by the abstract from the manufacturing record, the allowance to be reduced according to the quantity of imported material which will be replaced by the value of the waste. The sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated May 26, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. JAMES F. CURTIS, (T. D. 33581.) Drawback on arsenate of lead. Drawback on arsenate of lead manufactured by the Merrimac Chemical Co., of North Woburn, Mass., with the use of imported pig lead in conjunction with domestic materials.-T. D. 27341 of May 14, 1906, revoked. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 25, 1913. 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 arsenate of lead in paste form and arsenate of lead in dry form, manufactured by the Merrimac Chemical Co., of North Woburn, Mass., with the use of imported pig lead in conjunction with domestic materials. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported lead used in the manufacture of the exported arsenate of lead, as shown by the sworn statement of the manufacturers, dated June 12, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. T. D. 27341 of May 14, 1906, is hereby revoked. T. D. 32972 of November 26, 1912, extended to cover prepared talcum powder designated as "Eutaska," manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of imported talcum powder in conjunction with domestic ingredients. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 25, 1913. SIR: The department's regulations of November 26, 1912 (T. D. 32972), providing for the payment of drawback on prepared talcum powder manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of imported talcum powder in conjunction with domestic ingredients, are hereby extended to cover the brand of prepared talcum powder manufactured by the said firm designated as "Eutaska.” T. D. 32972 of November 26, 1912, is hereby amended to provide for the filing of supplemental sworn schedules covering other brands of prepared talcum powder manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., and upon verification of such schedules drawback may be allowed on the brands of prepared talcum powder covered thereby. Respectfully, JAMES F. CURTIS, Assistant Secretary. (92333.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (T. D. 33583.) Dutiable value-Commissions. Appeal directed from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of June 7, 1913, Abstract 32681 (T. D. 33511), involving the question of the correct value as the basis for the liquidation of entries. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 25, 1913. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant in regard to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of the 7th instant, Abstract 32681 (T. D. 33511), involving the question of the correct value as the basis for the liquidation of the entry covering the merchandise the subject of the board's decision. In view of the importance of the issue and in accordance with your recommendation, you are hereby authorized 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, JAMES F. CURTIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. (T. D. 33584.) Drawback on barrel heads. Drawback on barrel heads manufactured by Richard Hamilton, of Rahway, N. J., with the use of imported lumber. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 26, 1913. 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 barrel heads manufactured by Richard Hamilton of Rahway, N. J., with the use of imported lumber. A manufacturing record shall be kept, which will show, in addition to the usual data, the quantity of imported lumber used in the manufacture of each lot of barrel heads for exportation with the benefit of drawback, the quantity of each size of barrel heads produced, the quantity of waste incurred, the value of such waste, if any, and the value of imported material used. An abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of lumber used in the manufacture of the barrel heads exported, as shown by the abstract |