BEFORE BOARD 2, JUNE 13, 1913. No. 32742.-ADHESIVE FELT.-Protests 671600, etc., of August Bleecker & Sons et al. (New York), and protests 622528, etc., of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. et al. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Fischer, G. A. Merchandise classified as roofing felt under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1909, was held free of duty as adhesive felt for sheathing vessels (par. 564). G. A. 7451 (T. D. 33302) followed. No. 32743.-PAPER WITH SURFACE DESIGN.-Protests 529697, etc., of A. H. Ringk & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Cover papers with a surface design were held properly classified under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. Steinman v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 392; T. D. 32985) followed. No. 32744.-FIGURED COTTONS.-Protests 503599, etc., of Stern Bros. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protests overruled on the authority of United States v. McConnell (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 73; T. D. 31104) as to mercerized and figured cottons. No. 32745.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 193331, etc., of Rosenthal & Sloane Millinery Co. et al. (St. Louis), and protests 646104, etc., of E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. (Wilmington). Protests abandoned. BEFORE BOARD 3, JUNE 13, 1913. No. 32746.-BRONZE MASK-SCULPTURES.-Protest 612476 of Eugene Meyer, jr. (New York). WAITE, General Appraiser: This is a case arising over the importation of a bronze mask of Balzac. It is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 470, tariff act of 1909. It was assessed as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 199. If it is dutiable under paragraph 470 it must be as a sculpture, and, according to the terms of the statute, must have been "cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand, * * * from metal." Furthermore, it must be "the professional production of a sculptor only." A commission was issued in this case, under which the testimony of the artist, Auguste Rodin, was taken. His testimony is the only evidence in the case. It is stipulated, however, between attorneys for the parties to this action that Rodin is a professional sculptor. The only question, then, is whether this particular piece was "cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand" by him. His testimony upon the subject of the making of this mask is as follows: I made the design and the original model in clay of the bronze mask of Balzac. The original model was in clay, which I did entirely with my own hands. From this a plaster cast was made by my molder, and this plaster cast was then taken to my founder, who made therefrom the bronze cast. Of course I did not work personally on the casting of the bronze; that is not the work of a sculptor in our days; but when the bronze casting was finished I examined same to see if it was in perfect condition, and if there are any defects I see that they are corrected. In response to the fifth interrogatory he makes the following statement: (a) The bronze was cast by my founder; (b) that I was not present at the casting of this bronze, and never am present at casting of my work; (c) that I was not present, as stated; (d) I leave the casting entirely to my founder, in whom I have entire confidence; (e) when the bronze casting comes from the founder it has a rough and discolored surface. By a special treatment with acids, which I myself supervise, we are able to give the work a finer appearance and finish, which forms part of its value. I personally superintend that, although, of course, I do not do the actual work. While the board and the courts have held that a liberal construction should be given to this clause of the statute, we are unable to see how this particular piece of work can be admitted under paragraph 470 without disregarding entirely the provisions of the paragraph. We are aware that very great liberality has been shown by the courts, as in the case of United States v. Tiffany (160 Fed., 408; T. D. 28717), but, even giving that decision its fullest scope as a precedent, the testimony in this case does not warrant us in finding that this particular importation should be admitted under the paragraph mentioned. There probably is no question but that it is a work of art of a high order and at the same time comes as near being wrought by the hand of the artist as is the case generally with bronze works of art, and if not admitted as sculptures it is because of the infirmity of the statutory provision. Being a reproduction from the actual handiwork of the artist, which seems to have been satisfactory to him and which he is willing to have go out as his work, it seems unreasonable to hold that it is a manufacture of metal. Still, the board has no latitude after having reached the limit of liberal construction. There is nothing in the record upon which we can base a finding that this mask was "wrought by hand * from metal." We know of no case admitting similar articles under the provision of the law in question, except where the evidence showed the artist to have actually done some work with his own hands upon the piece after it had left the founder. See Del Nero's case, G. A. 6346 (T. D. 27302); Abstract 27215 (T. D. 32046), covering work by the same artist, affirmed by the United States Court of Customs Appeals in United States v. Godwin (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 226; T. D. 32538), United States v. Tiffany (160 Fed., 408; T. D. 28717); Altman's case, G. A. 6813 (T. D. 29279), affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Altman v. United States (224 U. S., 583; T. D. 32589), and In re Art Institute of Chicago, Abstract 29420 (T. D. 32751). * * We are compelled, in view of the above decisions, and in order to give any meaning whatever to the terms of the statute, to hold that this article must pay duty as a manufacture of metal. The protest is therefore overruled. No. 32747.-MODEL.-Protest 597202 of Fraser, Turk & Myers (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Machinery assessed as of commercial size as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, was found to be a model entitled to free entry under paragraph 629. No. 32748.-TOMATO PASTE.-Protests 560383-3886, etc., of A. Cusimano & Co. et al. (New Orleans). Opinion by Waite, G. A. On the authority of Vitelli v. United States (T. D. 33313) tomato paste was held dutiable under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled. No. 32749.-SUGAR-TARE-SHORTAGE.-Protests 553293-3864, etc., of American Sugar Refining Co. (New Orleans). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests sustained claiming that sufficient allowance was not made for tare in an importation of sugar in bags. American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 69; T. D. 32352) followed. On the authority of United States v. Brown (T. D. 33374) protests overruled claiming shortage. No. 32750.-COVERINGS OF LIQUIDS AND SEMILIQUIDS.-Protest 331437 of P. Terrile (Boston), and protests 353563, etc., and 386887, etc., of G. Afeltra et al., protests 330160, etc., of H. M. Gidden et al., and protests 303016, etc., of Henry W. Peabody & Co. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Peabody (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 130; T. D. 32383) certain coverings of liquids and semiliquids were held entitled to free entry, as claimed. Protests sustained in part. No. 32751.-GAUGE.-Protests 615021-41228, etc., of Sprague, Warner & Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests overruled claiming duty was assessed upon excessive gauge, No. 32752.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 683871, etc., of American Express Co. et al., protests 684446, etc., of Arbuckle Bros. et al., and protests 659810, etc., of Samstag & Hilder Bros. et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 32753.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 608316, etc., of T. D. Downing & Co. et al. (Boston), protests 205813-21760, etc., of Mandel Bros. et al. (Chicago), protests 288116, etc., of O. G. Hempstead & Son et al. (Philadelphia), and protests 425261, etc., of M. Furuya Co. et al. (Port Townsend). Protests abandoned. (T. D. 33561.) Drawback on spelter. T. D. 31725 of June 29, 1911, extended to cover spelter manufactured by the American Metal Co., St. Louis, Mo., from imported ore. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 17, 1913. SIR: The department's regulations of June 29, 1911 (T. D. 31725), providing for the payment of drawback on spelter manufactured by the Edgar Zinc Co., of St. Louis, Mo., from imported calamine, are hereby extended to cover spelter manufactured from imported ore by the American Metal Co., of St. Louis, Mo., at the plants of the Bartlesville Zinc Co., at Bartlesville and Collinsville, Okla., and the Lanyon Starr Smelting Co., Bartlesville, Okla. Drawback shall not be allowed under these regulations on spelter produced in bond. The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated May 22, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Respectfully, SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, St. Louis, Mo. (T. D. 33562.) JAMES F. CURTIS, Assistant Secretary. The carat-Weight of precious stones. On and after July 1, 1913, the unit of weight for diamonds, pearls, and other precious stones will be the metric carat of 200 milligrams. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 17, 1913. To collectors and other officers of the customs: On and after July 1, 1913, the unit of weight for imported diamonds, pearls, and other precious stones will be the metric carat of 200 milligrams. Collectors at ports now equipped with scales for weighing precious stones will make requisition for a new set of weights based upon Drawback on imported shoe vamps manufactured in the United States by the Reproduction Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., by decorating with a printed design. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 13, 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 imported shoe vamps manufactured in the United States by the Reproduction Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., by decorating with a printed design in the manner indicated in their sworn statement, dated May 9, 1913, transmitted herewith for filing in your office. The allowance shall not exceed one imported plain shoe vamp for each decorated or printed shoe vamp exported. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (T. D. 33565.) JAMES F. CURTIS, Drawback on tennis balls. Drawback on tennis balls manufactured by Wright & Ditson, of Wakefield, Mass., with the use of imported rubber balls and cotton covers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 18, 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 tennis balls manufactured by Wright & Ditson, of Wakefield, Mass., with the use of imported rubber balls and cotton covers. 75044-VOL 24-13- -68 The allowance shall not exceed one imported rubber ball and cotton cover for each tennis ball exported. The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated June 10, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. (T. D. 33566.) Drawback on candy. JAMES F. CURTIS, T. D. 32524 of May 20, 1912, extended to cover candy designated as "Baby Mine" manufactured by the Ohio Confection Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported sugar and coconut. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 18, 1913. SIR: The department's regulations of May 20, 1912 (T. D. 32524), providing for the payment of drawback on "Coconut Ditties" manufactured by the Ohio Confection Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, are hereby extended to cover candy designated as "Baby Mine," manufactured by the said company with the use of imported coconut and refined sugar or refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. The allowance shall not exceed 45.25 per cent refined sugar and 4.18 per cent coconut. The sworn statements of the manufacturer, dated April 16 and June 5, 1913, are transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Drawback on flexible metal hose manufactured from imported flexible metal hose and tubing by the United Metal Hose Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., by cutting and attaching permanently thereto couplings and fittings. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 19, 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 flexible metallic hose manufactured from flexible metal hose and tubing by the United Metal Hose Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., by cutting and attaching permanently thereto couplings and fittings in the manner indicated in its sworn statement, dated May 23, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. |