from the manufacturing record, the allowance to be reduced according to the value of the waste, if any. The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated May 20, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Approving bond of the Border Line Transportation Co. as a common carrier for the transportation of dutiable merchandise and for the lading and unlading of bonded goods under the act approved February 13, 1911. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 27, 1913. SIR: The department has received your letter of the 16th instant, with which was inclosed a bond of the Border Line Transportation Co. as a common carrier for the transportation of dutiable merchandise and for the lading and unlading of bonded goods under the act of February 13, 1911. The bond has been approved, and one copy thereof is inclosed herewith to be placed upon the files of your office. Respectfully, JAMES F. CURTIS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port Townsend, Wash. (T. D. 33586.) Common carrier. Discontinuance of the bonded route of the Philadelphia and Gulf Steamship Co. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 27, 1913. SIR: The department has received your letter of the 23d instant, wherein you state that the affairs of the Philadelphia and Gulf Steamship Co., bonded as a common carrier for the transportation of dutiable merchandise under bond approved June 25, 1909, copy of which is on file in your office, are in the hands of a receiver. The discontinuance of the bonded route of the company named is hereby authorized, and you are instructed to note the fact and date upon the copy of the bond of said company approved, as above stated, June 25, 1909, now in your possession, and retain the same without cancellation to meet any liability which may have accrued thereunder. Respectfully, JAMES F. CURTIS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Philadelphia, Pa. (T. D. 33587-G. A. 7473.) Imitation pearl beads. Merchandise claimed by the importers to be dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of jewelry, is properly dutiable under paragraph 421 as imitation pearl beads at 35 per cent ad valorem.-United States v. American Bead Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 509; T. D. 33166), United States v. American Express Co. (147 Fed., 894; T. D. 25808), and G. A. 7155 (T. D. 31234) distinguished. United States General Appraisers, New York, June 23, 1913. In the matter of protests 451974, etc., of Albert Lorsch & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (MCCLELLAND and SULLIVAN, General Appraisers). SULLIVAN, General Appraiser: These protests are directed against the assessment of duty at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421 of the tariff act of 1909 on certain merchandise returned by the appraiser as imitation pearl beads not threaded or strung, which are specially provided for in said paragraph. It is claimed by the importers that the merchandise is dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449 as imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts thereof, for use, in the manufacture of jewelry. · The testimony is voluminous. At the first hearing all the evidence introduced was by the importers, and the board having rendered an opinion sustaining the protests, the Government filed a petition for rehearing, which was granted, and additional testimony taken. The exhibits and illustrative exhibits introduced in evidence disclose that the merchandise consists of beads strung and unstrung in imitation of pearls, which are used for various purposes-necklaces, brooches, and, in the cheaper quality, for embroidery. The evidence shows that they may be strung on wires; they may have one or two holes; and are known in the trade as beads. The fact sought to be proven is whether or not the merchandise should be classified as beads under paragraph 421 or imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of jewelry under paragraph 449 of the tariff act. The Government introduced a number of witnesses to establish the fact that the merchandise was beads. The examiner, Mr. Flateau, who has more than 17 years' experience with this class of merchandise, returned the goods as beads, and testifies that for 11 years they have been so returned; when loose they have been returned as such without regard to the component materials; that under the tariff act of 1897 this class of merchandise was returned (quality 14) as manufactures of glass or paste at 45 per cent ad valorem, and (qualities 4 and 5) as manufactures of wax at 25 per cent ad valorem. The strength of Mr. Flateau's testimony lies in his experience. He had all of this class of merchandise before him, and his judgment is entitled to great weight. Members of importing firms and manufacturers of novelties and jewelry testified, after examining the merchandise in question and the illustrative exhibits offered, that they should be classified as beads. Mr. Rosenberg was particularly positive that the merchandise was known in the trade as beads. After an examination of all the exhibits offered and the samples of the merchandise in question, he states: Q. Whether or not the exhibits you have examined were included in that term (beads) at the time you have testified about (prior to 1909)?-A. They were. We quote from Mr. Rosenberg's testimony, as his qualification is admitted, and his testimony is clear, unprejudiced, and evidently based upon his knowledge of the article in question. Mr. Hyman testified: Q. State whether or not you have handled at wholesale merchandise of this character at and prior to August, 1909.-A. We have always handled that character of goods. Q. State whether or not they were included in the trade class of imitation pearl beads.-A. Imitation pearl beads. Q. During all your experience?-A. Yes, sir. He further states that his firm handled and manufactured them in the form of necklaces and chains. He testifies that prior to 1907 his firm imported the merchandise in bunches and in strings 10 inches long. He then states: Q. How long before 1909 did you say you handled them?-A. Every season we have been in business. It is a staple article-wax beads-pearl imitations. He also states that whether loose or in bunches they were always included in the trade class of imitation pearl beads. Mr. Hynds testified on cross-examination as follows: Q. But these things are handled by you and shown by you as exhibits of various kinds of imitation precious stones that you carry?—A. Not a pearl is regarded as an imitation precious stone. Q. Then you don't regard a pearl as an imitation precious stone?-A. No; we do not. We refer to the testimony of these witnesses as indicative of the testimony offered by the Government. More than 20 witnesses and 2 examiners testified that the articles in dispute are known as beads; and after stating their experience in handling such articles they gave clear and explicit reasons why they were classified as such in the trade. The testimony offered by the importers was that the merchandise was known as imitation precious stones for use in the manufacture of jewelry. Mr. Brunswick, one of the principal witnesses for the importers, connected with the Fredericks Co. (Inc.), engaged in the business of manufacturing jewelry, real and imitation, referring to the merchandise that his firm imports, and especially to illustrative Exhibits F, being a brooch, and G, a horseshoe, states the merchandise would be classified as imitation precious stones. Exhibits F and G referred to have imitation pearls of the two-hole variety strung on wire around the brooch and horseshoe, which are similar, whether strung or loose, to what are admitted to be beads. In fact, the articles around Exhibits F and G would be designated by anyone who would pick up the exhibits as beads strung on wire and attached to the brooch and horseshoe. He testifies: In all the Fredericks stores and the factories and through the mail order they are never sold as beads. They are always sold as artificial pearls. He further testifies: The imitation pearls that we import are never sold as beads. Q. Do you deal in any beads?-A. No. Q. You know of nothing which you sell as a bead?—A. Well, we sell coral beads, and imitation emerald beads, and perhaps amethyst beads. Q. And they are used as necklaces?-A. Yes; altogether as necklaces. Q. Are they articles of jewelry?-A. Yes; we sell them as jewelry. Q. And they are known commercially as beads?-A. Yes; I think they are. Q. Under the tariff act of 1909?—A. Well, we have always sold them as beads. Q. The imitation emerald and coral?-A. Yes; and the real coral beads. This sufficiently indicates the character of the testimony offered by the importer. It does not establish that the merchandise in dispute has been known in the trade as imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of jewelry. It could be used as such, it is true, but that is not sufficient to bring it within the clause "in the manufacture of jewelry"; so the fact is established that the merchandise in question is known in the trade as beads. It is admitted by counsel for the importers that, with reference to the merchandise in question, the sole test is, "Are the articles for use in the manufacture of jewelry?" Guided by this admission the evidence does not sustain the proposition that the articles are for use in the manufacture of jewelry, although they may be thus used. The subject of beads has received attention not only by Congress but by the courts of the United States. A very full and clear exposi 75044-VOL 24-13-71 tion of the terms "beads" and "imitation precious stones" in the statutes of the different tariff acts is set forth in United States v. Morrison (179 U. S., 456). In that case it is clearly shown from the inception of the tariff acts Congress has at all times kept beads separate and apart from imitation precious stones. In every instance the classification has been separate and the duties higher on beads than on imitation precious stones. The authorities cited do not in any way contravene the conclusion found. The case of United States v. American Bead Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 509; T. D. 33166), cited by the importers, is not in contravention of the holding in the case at bar. In fact, it is shown in the case at bar that the merchandise was not devoted to or adapted to the manufacture of jewelry, and under the ruling enunciated in United States v. American Bead Co., supra, they were properly classified and dutiable as beads. In United States v. American Express Co. (147 Fed., 894; T. D. 25808) the question at issue was not as in the case at bar-Was the merchandise beads? In that case the merchandise consisted of sapphires designed for use as electrical instrument bearings, and it was held they were not beads. G. A. 7155 (T. D. 31234) is cited as sustaining the rule claimed by the importer. This cause was decided by the General Appraisers (Board 1) January 30, 1911. The board, in passing on the classification, held: The testimony shows conclusively that the articles in question were included in the class of goods commercially known, at and prior to the passage of the tariff act of 1909, as imitation precious stones. More specifically, they are known as imitation pearls and not as imitation pearl beads. This clearly differentiates the articles here involved from those passed upon in G. A. 5784 (T. D. 25566) and G. A. 7079 (T. D. 30827), wherein the board held that certain imitation pearl beads of inferior quality, not shown to be otherwise commercially known than as pearl beads, were dutiable as imitation pearl beads under paragraph 421. In that case we further held that commercial designation and use were made the dominant factors in determining classification-not exceptional or occasional use, but the general and predominating use. In the present case the testimony abundantly establishes the further fact that the chief or predominating purpose or use of the articles in question is in the manufacture of jewelry. We cite extensively from that case, as the holding hinges on the question of fact that the articles in dispute were known as imitation precious stones used in the manufacture of jewelry. Applying that rule to the facts in the present case we can say that it is established that the articles in dispute are classified and known in the trade as beads, and that they are not known and understood as imitation precious stones used in the manufacture of jewelry. It is our conclusion that the merchandise is properly dutiable under paragraph 421 as beads, and the protests are accordingly overruled and the collector's assessment in each case affirmed. |