under (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911) on medicinal preparations designated as Aletris Cordial Rio and Celerina, manufactured by the Rio Chemical Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol.

A sworn abstract from a special manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry which will show, in addition to the usual data, the quantity and proof of the alcohol and the quantity of other materials used in the manufacture of each lot of the preparations, the quantity of finished preparation produced, and the number and nominal capacity of bottles of the preparation obtained from such lot.

The drawback to be paid on the exported preparations shall be determined by apportioning the amount of tax paid on the alcohol used in the manufacture of the lot from which the exported preparation is taken, according to the number of bottles of the preparation obtained and the number of bottles exported. However, in no case shall the allowance exceed 30 wine gallons of 188 proof alcohol to the lot in the case of aletris cordial rio, and 47 wine gallons of 188 proof alcohol to the lot in the case of celerina.

The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated January 30, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

T. D. 30928 of September 19, 1910, is hereby revoked.

Invoices of merchandise from Arriaga and Magdalena Bay accepted when certified in accordance with the provisions of section 2844, Revised Statutes.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 28, 1913. SIR: The department is in receipt of a letter from the Secretary of State, recommending that as Arriaga and Magdalena Bay are inaccessible to an American consular office, invoices from these places be accepted when certified in accordance with section 2844 of the Revised Statutes.

Accordingly, you are hereby authorized to accept invoices covering shipments from Arriaga and Magdalena Bay when certified in the manner prescribed by said section 2844.

Respectfully,

(91585.)

JAMES F. CURTIS,
Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal.

(T. D. 33234.)

Drawback on automobile axles.

Drawback on automobile axles manufactured by the McCue Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported annular bearings.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 27, 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 automobile axles manufactured by the McCue Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported annular bearings.

The allowance shall not exceed the number of bearings appearing in the exported axles as shown by the sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated January 28, 1913, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

Drawback on portable electric pneumatic vacuum cleaners and equipment manufactured by the Duntley Products Co., of Erie, Pa., with the use of aluminum castings manufactured by the German Bronze Co., of Erie, Pa., from imported aluminum.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 28, 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 portable electric pneumatic vacuum cleaners and equipment manufactured by the Duntley Products Co., of Erie, Pa., with the use of aluminum castings manufactured by the German Bronze Co. from imported aluminum.

The allowance shall not exceed the weight of the castings used in the manufacture of the exported cleaners and equipment, as shown by the sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated December 20, 1912, which is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

Respectfully,
(97194.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Buffalo, N. Y.

(T. D. 33236.)

JAMES F. CURTIS,
Assistant Secretary.

Drawback on sieve cloths.

Drawback on sieve cloths manufactured by the Multi-Metal Separating Screen Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported wire cloth.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 28, 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 sieve cloths manufactured by the Multi-Metal Separating Screen Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported wire cloth.

A special manufacturing record shall be kept which will show, in addition to the usual data, the number of square feet of wire cloth used in the manufacture of each lot of sieves for exportation, the number and size of sieves produced, the quantity of waste incurred and the value of such waste, if any. An abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry.

The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated February 3, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office.

Baskets of straw or wood covered with cotton, cotton being the component of chief value, are dutiable under paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909.-United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171) and Vantine v. United States (T. D. 33124) distinguished.

United States General Appraisers, New York, February 25, 1913. In the matter of protest 593085 of H. Maillard against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers; HOWELL, G. A., absent).

COOPER, General Appraiser: This protest is submitted on the record The record consists of the invoice, the protest, and the return and amended return of the appraiser. A sample of the imported merchandise was not retained by the collector. Duty was collected upon the merchandise at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem as levied by paragraph 332 of the tariff act of 1909.

The appraiser's return is as follows:

The merchandise consists of baskets of straw or wood and cotton, cotton chief value. At the request of the collector for further report in view of G. A. 7321 (T. D. 31587) the appraiser reports:

Baskets are not covered by the above authority, not being lined with cotton, but covered with cotton.

This is the evidence upon which the classification of the goods imported was made and duty collected under paragraph 332.

The importer claims that duty should have been collected as levied by paragraph 214. The issue must be determined by ascer

taining and deciding which of the two paragraphs in the law properly and legally applies to the facts in this case and levies duties on the imported merchandise. The two contending paragraphs read as follows:

Par. 332. All articles made from cotton cloth, whether finished or unfinished, and all manufactures of cotton, or of which cotton is the component material of chief value not specially provided for in this section, forty-five per centum ad valorem.

Par. 214. Porch and window blinds, baskets, curtains, shades, or screens of bamboo, wood, straw, or compositions of wood, not specially provided for in this section, thirtyfive per centum ad valorem;

*

It is a rule long and well-settled that in determining the proper classification of imported merchandise where either of two paragraphs may levy duty on the same article or commodity, a specific or eo nomine clause in the law controls words of general description. United States v. Hatters' Fur Exchange (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 31237); Chew Hing Lung v. Wise (176 U. S., 156; T. D. 21954).

In United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171) the court had before it for decision a case similar, if not on all fours with the case at bar, the difference being that in that case silk was the component material of chief value, and in the instant case cotton is the component of chief value. In the case named above the court, speaking through its presiding judge, said that—

"Baskets" is an eo nomine term, and it would seem that the only requirement to bring it within the terms of paragraph 214 is to say that it is in fact the article described, namely, a basket composed of bamboo, wood, straw, or compositions of wood. If so, it is specifically provided for.

In support of this view or opinion the following authorities were cited by the court: Thomsen v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 37; T. D. 31590); Brody v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 15; T. D. 31573); Krauss v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 17; T. D. 31574), and Foppes v. United States (72 Fed., 45.)

In Vantine v. United States (T. D. 33124) the court had before it a case in some respects similar to the case at bar, and in that case the protestant contended that the importation was dutiable under paragraph 214 as claimed in this case. The cases are distinguishable both as to the facts and the law. In the Vantine case the imported merchandise was screens of wood, and the panels of the screens were made of silk and embroidered silk, and such silk component was the chief value of the article. The wood of the screens was negligible in quantity, value, and use.

Paragraph 402 has the following proviso:

That articles composed wholly or in chief value of any of the materials or goods dutiable under this paragraph shall pay not less than the rate of duty imposed upon such materials or goods by this section.

And under this proviso an article, though dutiable under paragraph 214, would be transported to and covered by paragraph 402. We think the rule laid down in United States v. Zinn, supra, is the law applicable to the case now under consideration, and following that authority we sustain the protest and hold the merchandise dutiable under paragraph 214 at 35 per cent ad valorem.

(T. D. 33238-G. A. 7438.)

Imitation parchment papers- Manifold papers.

1. GREASE-PROOF AND IMITATION PARCHMEnt Papers-MANIFOLD Papers. Under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, grease-proof and imitation parchment papers are dutiable under the provision therefor in paragraph 411, rather than as "manifold" paper under paragraph 413, even when suitable for manifolding. 2. CONSTRUCTION-POLICY OF Law.

In construing the application of the provisions for "all other grease-proof and imitation parchment papers" by whatever name known, and "manifold" paper, as applied to imitation parchment papers, consideration must be given to the evident intent of Congress to group within the same classification, without regard to trade names, all parchment and imitation parchment papers.

United States General Appraisers, New York, February 25, 1913. In the matter of protests 575670, etc., of W. Stursburg, Schell & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers; HOWELL, G. A., absent.)

FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise involved in these cases is concededly grease-proof and imitation parchment paper. It is a light-weight variety of the dull-finish imitation parchment paper referred to in the case of the Germania Importing Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 33221). It is reported to be a grease-proof manifold paper, and was assessed with duty at 3 cents per pound and 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 413, tariff act of 1909, as "manifold" paper. The importers claim that the said paper is dutiable properly at 2 cents per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem under the provision for "all other grease-proof and imitation parchment papers" in paragraph 411 of said act.

The question not only is whether the paper is included within the provision for manifold papers as well as for imitation parchment papers, but (if so included within both designations) which of the two provisions is more definite in its application and therefore controlling.

The enumeration of manifold and imitation parchment papers came into the tariff in the revision of 1909. The nature and char