No. 31297.-HUMAN HAIR.-Protest 637827 of American Express Co. (Boston). HAY, General Appraiser: The protestant in this case imported a quantity of human hair, which was assessed at 35 per cent ad valorem under the last clause of paragraph 442 of the act of 1909. There was no testimony offered to show the character of this hair, exactly what had been done to it, or the use to which it could be put in its present condition. The case was submitted upon an argument by the importer in which he contends, as he does in his protest, that the hair should be assessed under the first clause in paragraph 442, admitting that it is dyed, but claiming that that does not bring it under the last clause of the paragraph. Paragraph 442 reads as follows: Hair, human, if cleaned or drawn but not manufactured, twenty per centum ad valorem; manufactures of human hair, or of which human hair is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. The second provision of this paragraph did not appear in the tariff act of 1897, but the corresponding paragraph of that law contained only the first provision of paragraph 442. There has thus far been no construction by the board or the courts as to the meaning of the second provision of that paragraph. The contention of the importer is, that before it is applicable the hair must be manufactured into some kind of an article ready to wear, the Government's contention being that, wherever anything is done to it other than cleaning or drawing it, it is removed from the first provision of paragraph 442 into the second, and that the hair in question having been dyed is so removed. The record in this case is so incomplete, as we are not advised by it for what purpose the hair was dyed nor the use to which it is put, we feel it inadvisable to place any construction on this paragraph or to determine the exact classification of the merchandise in this case. The protest is therefore overruled without affirming the action of the collector. No. 31298.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 623130, etc., of Kimpton, Harbottle & Haupt (New York), and protest 637210 of Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (Rochester). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 1, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. No. 31299.-TOY NECKLACES.-Protests 515275, etc., of A. J. Hague & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Beaded necklaces of flimsy construction classified under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as toys (par. 431). G. A. 7251 (T. D. 31786) followed. No. 31300.-IMITATION JET ARTICLES.-Protests 408334, etc., of L. Rheims & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Imitation jet articles held dutiable under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 457; T. D. 31506) followed. No. 31301.-ROSARIES.-Protest 578154 of P. J. Kennedy & Sons (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest overruled as to rosaries classified as manufactures of glass or metal under paragraph 109 or 199, tariff act of 1909, and as manufactures of bone (par. 463). No. 81302.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 500377, etc., of E. Frank et al. (Cincinnati). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 31303.-CINNAMIC ACID.-Protest 652797 of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (St. Louis). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Cinnamic acid held properly classified as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909. No. 31304.-—WOOL YARN.-Protests 621075-41677, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Certain wool yarn held dutiable under paragraph 377, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Abstract 29523 (T. D. 32767) followed. No. 31305.-TEDDY BEAR MUFFS-TOYS.-Protest 605683-41091 of Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Teddy bear muffs classified as wool wearing apparel under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as toys (par. 431). Carson v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 386; T. D. 32112) followed. No. 31306.-GASTRIC JUICE-MEDICINAL PREPARATION.-Protests 610396, etc., of A. G. Pritchard & Co. (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests overruled as to gastric juice classified under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 30334 (T. D. 32905) followed. No. 31307.-LEAF TOBACCO.-Protests 676455, etc., of Cane Bros., and protest 676482 of S. I. Davis & Co. (New York). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Leaf tobacco classified as wrapper was claimed dutiable as filler. Protests sustained as to those bales found to contain at least 85 per cent of filler. No. 31308.-METAL FABRICS.-Protest 663073 of Theodore Tiedemann & Sons (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Dress goods composed of wool and metal thread classified under paragraph 381, tariff act of 1909, was found to be in chief value of metal thread and held dutiable under paragraph 179, as claimed. No. 31309.-PROTEST INSUFFICIENT.-Protest 617592 of A. E. Rittwagen (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protest not stating the rate nor paragraph claimed held insufficient; dismissed. No. 31310.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 470514-35962 of G.W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago), protest 668067 of Milwaukee Wood Preserving Co. (Milwaukee), and protests 664520, etc., of Strahl & Pitsch et al., and protest 667181 of White Tar Co. (New York). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 3, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. No. 31311.-CoVERINGS OF LIQUIDS AND SEMILIQUIDS.-Protests 311629, etc., of G. Alfetra et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Peabody (T. D. 32383) certain coverings of liquids and semiliquids imported under the tariff act of 1897 were held free of duty, as claimed. No. 31312.-PORCELAIN PYROMETER TUBES.-Protest 651350 of Eytinge & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Porcelain pyrometer tubes assessed under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable under paragraph 95. Abstract 29504 (T. D. 32760) followed. No. 31313.-PUMICE-STONE BRICKS.-Protests 637579, etc., of Massce & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Pumice-stone bricks held dutiable under the last provision of paragraph 89, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled for the reason that this claim was not made. No. 31314.-BATH BRICK.-Protest 644085 of Hammill & Gillespie (New York) and protests 632800, etc., of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Hay, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7055 (T. D. 30752) bath brick was held properly classified under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. No. 31315.-MODELING CLAY.-Protests 632701, etc., of Embossing Co. (Albany), and protests 629001, etc., of William A. Brown & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Modeling clay or plasticine classified under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). United States v. Embossing Co. (T. D. 32536) followed. No. 31316.-Regalia-ReguLATIONS.-Protests 609139, etc., of J. J. Purtell & Co. et al. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A. For the reason that the certificates required by the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury were not filed in time, protests overruled claiming free entry for certain regalia. No. 31317.-CANADIAN RECIPROCITY.-Protest 587002 of W. H. Allison (Detroit). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Building paper assessed under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be exempt from duty under the provisions of the act relating to reciprocity with Canada. Protest overruled for the reason that the merchandise was not shown to be of Canadian origin. No. 31318.-METAL POLISH.-Protests 535318, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (St. Louis). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Metal polish classified under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). No. 31319. SAMPLES.-Protests 631483, etc., of F. Gernet (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled claiming fiee entry for certain merchandise as samples of no commercial value. No. 31320.-ESKIMO DOLLS.-Protest 613490 of B. Shackman & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protest overruled as to Eskimo dolls classified under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909. No. 31321.-CHINA DOLLS.-Protests 627949, etc., of B. Shackman & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Small china dolls mounted upon skis of wood and sleds of china, assessed under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as toys (par. 431). No. 31322.-QUAntity of KirschWASSER.-Protest 626168 of Fritzsche Bros. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protest overruled claiming that duty was assessed upon an excessive quantity of kirschwasser under the provisions of paragraphs 303 and 307, tariff act of 1909. No. 31323.-ARTIFICIAL TEETH.-Protests 624134, etc., of C. A. Sykes (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled as to artificial teeth classified under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, and claimed to be dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles. Abstract 29498 (T. D. 32760) cited. No. 31324.-Candles-Night LIGHTS.-Protests 622067, etc., of Abraham & Straus, and protest 614285 of Godillot & Co. (New York). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Night lights and candles classified under paragraph 436, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles (par. 480). Protests sustained as to candles similar to those passed upon in Abstract 29428 (T. D. 32751) and the night lights in United States v. Godillot (T. D. 32382). Protests overruled in all other respects. No. 31325.-EARTHENWARE AND METAL EXHAUSTERS AND PUMPS.-Protests 610102, etc., of Didier-March Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Didier (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 436; T. D. 32198) exhausters and pumps of earthenware and metal classified under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures in part of metal (par. 199). No. 31326.-BREECHES PASTE-MINERAL SUBSTANCES.-Protests 609851, etc., of Bartley Bros. & Hall (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled as to a mineral substance used to clean breeches of coachmen, classified under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, and claimed to be dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). No. 31327.-PUTZ POMADE.-Protests 603121, etc., of H. G. Ramsperger & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Putz pomade held dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 30030 (T. D. 32858) followed. No. 31328.-USUAL COVERINGS.-Protests 600183, etc., of Park & Tilford et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests sustained claiming merchandise to be entitled to free admission as usual coverings under the tariff act of 1897. United States v. Peabody (T. D. 32383) followed. No. 31329.-SPECIFIC-DUTY COVERINGS.-Protests 517300, etc., of T. H. La Fetra et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Coverings of merchandise subject to specific duty held entitled to free entry on the authority of United States v. Matagrin (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309; T. D. 31406). No. 31330.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 57722b of Hyman Bros. (Honolulu), protest 605034 of G. A. R. Lewington (Juneau), protests 592423-3925, etc., of Oberle & Henry (New Orleans), protest 619550 of American Express Co., and protests 565723, etc., of Byrnes & Lowery et al. (New York), and protest 594137 of Oregon Transfer Co. (Portland). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. (T. D. 33195.) Decalcomanias. UNITED STATES v. PALM, FECHTELER & Co. (No. 921). DECALCOMANIAS NOT CERAMICS, METAL BACKED. Application of the principles of statutory construction is not called for in this case, since there was a plain expression of intention that decalcomanias in ceramic colors if backed with metal leaf should pay a specified duty. But the decalcomanias of the importation are not of that described kind, and they fall appropriately under the classification "all other decalcomanias" in paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 12, 1913. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7355 (T. D. 32452). [Affirmed.] William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin, special attor ney, of counsel), for the United States. Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn of counsel) for appellees. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. BARBER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise here is lithographically printed decalcomanias, not in ceramic colors, backed with metal leaf. They were assessed for duty at 65 cents per pound under the provisions of paragraph 412 of the tariff act of 1909, and by the importers claimed to be properly dutiable thereunder at the rate of 40 cents per pound. The pertinent provisions of the paragraph are as follows: 412. * * * Decalcomanias in ceramic colors, weighing not over one hundred pounds per thousand sheets on the basis of twenty by thirty inches in dimensions, seventy cents per pound and fifteen per centum ad valorem; weighing over one hundred pounds per thousand sheets on the basis of twenty by thirty inches in dimensions, twenty-two cents per pound and fifteen per centum ad valorem; if backed with metal leaf, sixty-five cents per pound; all other decalcomanias, except toy decalcomanias, forty cents per pound; * * * The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protests. The only question is, whether the phrase "if backed with metal leaf" in the next to the last clause of the quoted portion of the paragraph applies to decalcomanias backed with metal leaf or whether it only applies to decalcomanias in ceramic colors backed with metal leaf. |