official authority, and as possession of the goods was dependent on compliance duress might well be asserted. Here, however, no unlawful demand as to their entry was made on the importers by the customs officers, nor were they led to believe by any course of conduct on the part of the collector that they were not free to make their entry in the form which they might deem best adapted to the protection of their legal rights. The entry they made was their entry-not that of the collector-and if they declared a market value higher than that which they really believed to be the true market value, they did so, we think, not by reason of the intervention of the collector, but rather because an error of judgment would result in the imposition of additional duties. The duties were assessed on the entered value, voluntarily made, in our opinion, and the protests were therefore properly overruled.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

(T. D. 33521.)

Trimmed straw hats.

UNITED STATES v. LORD & TAYLOR (No. 1090).

HATS OF STRAW TRIMMED WITH SILK.

On some of these hats the silk trimming is worth more, on others less, than the straw body to which it is attached. Paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, imposes a certain rate of duty on bats composed wholly or in chief value of straw, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, and another and higher rate of duty on the same hat if trimmed. The hats are here the subject of the duty imposed and not the trimming on the hats.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 26, 1913.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7415 (T. D. 33086). [Affirmed.]

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

Comstock & Washburn for appellees.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Straw hats trimmed with silk imported at the port of New York were classified by the collector of customs as wearing apparel composed in chief value of silk, dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 402 of the tariff act of 1909, which, in so far as it is pertinent to the issue, reads as follows:

402. Laces, *

*

*

and articles of wearing apparel of every description, including knit goods, made up or manufactured in whole or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer; all of the foregoing composed of silk, or of silk and metal, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, * specially provided for in this section, * * * sixty per centum ad valorem.

*

*

not

The importer protested the classification and duty assessed on several grounds; but on the hearing before the board the only claim insisted upon was that the goods were hats composed wholly or in chief value of straw, dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 422, which, in part, reads as follows:

*

422. * * Hats,

* composed wholly or in chief value of straw, * * * whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if trimmed, fifty per centum ad valorem.

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest and the Government appealed.

The hats involved are made of straw and are trimmed with silk. On some of them the silk trimming is worth more and on others less than the straw body to which it is attached. The Government admits that the hats the trimming of which is worth less than the straw bodies are properly dutiable under paragraph 422, and therefore concedes that as to such hats the protest was properly sustained. It contends, however, that the hats the silk trimming of which exceeds in value the straw body are not hats composed in chief value of straw and that consequently they should be excluded from the operation of paragraph 422 and held dutiable under paragraph 402 as wearing apparel composed in chief value of silk. This contention in effect means that trimmed hats should be considered as entireties in determining the component of chief value and that the particular provision of paragraph 422, above cited, must be interpreted as if it read "hats, if trimmed, composed wholly or in chief value of straw." We do not think that any such interpretation can be put upon the provision referred to without doing violence to the ordinary rules of grammatical construction and the intent of Congress as manifested by the language which it has actually used.

The paragraph imposes a certain rate of duty on hats composed wholly or in chief value of straw, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, and another and higher rate of duty on the very same hat if trimmed. As the hat contemplated by the second clause of the provision is the hat described in the first clause it follows that in determining the component of chief value the trimming is just as much to be excluded from consideration under the second clause as it is under the first. The phrase "composed wholly or in chief value of straw" relates to hats-not to hats untrimmed or to hats trimmed, and nothing appearing to justify the assumption that Congress made a grammatical slip which resulted in the saying of that which it did not intend to say, we must conclude that the value of the trimming can not be considered in determining the com

ponent of chief value. In this view of the matter we are confirmed by the construction which was put upon a similar provision in paragraph 409 of the tariff act of 1897, which was the prototype of the provision now under consideration and read as follows:

409. *

*

*

*

*

Hats, * * composed of straw, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if trimmed, fifty per centum ad valorem.

*

*

In construing this provision the Board of General Appraisers held in effect that the phrase "composed of straw" modified "hats," not "hats * * * if trimmed," and that the composition of the articles should be determined without regard to the trimming. In re Samuel Schiff & Co. (T. D. 21205); In re Henry Hummel & Co. (T. D. 25440).

It is true that the present act, instead of providing for "hats composed of straw," does provide for "hats composed wholly or in chief value of straw," but in our opinion that amendment was not passed to meet the decisions under paragraph 409, but rather to make it clear that hats not composed entirely of straw, but of braids of straw stitched together with thread should receive the same classification as hats composed of straw only. In making this change, however, Congress took care to preserve the syntax of paragraph 409, and the very same reasoning which excluded the trimming from consideration in determining whether a hat was "composed of straw" under the tariff act of 1897 excludes the trimming in determining whether a hat is "composed wholly or in chief value of straw" under the law now in force.

The decisions of the board just cited are not at all in conflict with the decisions reached in the protest of Leon Rheims Co. (T. D. 27541), affirmed by the Circuit Court in Leon Rheims Co. v. United States (154 Fed., 969), and by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Leon Rheims Co. v. United States (160 Fed., 925). Those cases did not deal with paragraph 409, but with paragraph 432, of the tariff act of 1897, which provided for "hats, * * trimmed or untrimmed,

*

* composed wholly or in chief value of fur of the rabbit, beaver, or other animals." In that provision the phrase "composed wholly or in chief value" clearly related to trimmed and untrimmed hats, and consequently in determining the chief value of a trimmed hat classified under it the trimming had to be considered in order to determine the component of chief value. To hold that the entirety must always be considered in ascertaining chief value would result in nullifying completely the distinction drawn by the board and the courts between paragraphs 409 and 432 of the tariff act of 1897, and carefully preserved by Congress in paragraphs 442 and 446 of the tariff act of 1909, to say nothing of the effect of such a holding on

75044-VOL 24-13- -62

other paragraphs which make it manifest that the article, stripped of that which is incidental and not the article as an entirety, shall be taken into account in finding chief value.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

(T. D. 33522.)

Medicinal preparation.

LEHN & FINK v. UNITED STATES (No. 1093).

SIRUP OF RHAMNUS, ETC.

The goods in controversy are not natural drugs such as those that are enumerated in paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909, but are medicines artificially produced and ready for use. They are medicinal preparations within the intention of paragraph 65 of that act and are dutiable thereunder.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 26, 1913.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7421 (T. D. 33118). [Affirmed.]

Walden & Webster for appellants.

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Leland N. Wood, assistant attorney, on the brief), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. SMITH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

Sirup of rhamnus, extract of gentian, and extract of taraxacum, imported at the port of New York, were classified by the collector of customs as medicinal preparations and assessed for duty at 25 per cent ad valorem under that part of paragraph 65 of the tariff act of 1909 which reads as follows:

65. *

*

*

All other medicinal preparations not specially provided for in this section, twenty-five per centum ad valorem:

*

*

The classification and assessment of duty by the collector were protested on several grounds, but on the hearing before the board the importers pinned their faith to the claim that the goods imported were natural uncompounded drugs, dutiable at one-fourth of 1 cent per pound in addition to 10 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 20, which reads as follows:

20. Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, balsams, buds, bulbs, bulbous roots, excrescences, fruits, flowers, dried fibers, dried insects, grains, gums and gum resin, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, nuts, nutgalls, roots, stems, spices, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), seeds of morbid growth, weeds, and woods used expressly for dyeing or tanning; any of the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible, and not specially provided for in this section, but which are advanced in value or condition by any process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture, one-fourth of one cent per pound, and in addition thereto ten per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article containing alcohol, or in the preparation of which alcohol is used, shall be classified for duty under this paragraph.

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed.

It appears from the record that the sirup of rhamnus is produced by expressing the fresh, ripe berries of the plant commonly known as buckthorn and mixing with the juice thus produced a certain percentage of sugar. The extract of gentian, as appears from the testimony of one of the witnesses, is a dry powder, made "by extracting the gentian root with water and evaporating the solution to dryness and powdering it." The description of the process of manufacture is not very elaborate, but we think it goes far enough to justify the assumption that by boiling or soaking gentian root its desirable medicinal principles are withdrawn or extracted in solution from the root and then secured as a solid by evaporating the water in which they were dissolved. The extract of taraxacum is a dry powder obtained by evaporating the juices expressed from the fresh roots of the plant commonly called dandelion. No alcohol is used in the preparation of the sirup or extracts, and it is undisputed that all three products when prepared as indicated and in the form imported are prescribed by physicians and are ready for administration to patients as medicines. The importer argues that the goods are natural uncompounded drugs advanced in value, and that therefore they are dutiable at one-fourth of 1 cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem, as prescribed by paragraph 20.

The trouble with this contention, as we see it, is that the premise laid is not justified by the facts of the case or the wording of the statute. In our opinion, paragraph 20 is limited by its terms to such natural uncompounded drugs as inedible barks, beans, berries, roots, and so forth, and does not extend to infusions, decoctions, or extracts made from such substances. In the process of manufacture the physical properties and distinguishing characteristics of the roots and berries from which the infusions, decoctions, and extracts are made were lost so completely that in no sense could the latter be properly called "drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, * * roots," and so forth. Paragraph 20 does provide for certain enumerated drugs "advanced in value or condition by any process or treatment whatever." Nevertheless the limitation of the paragraph to natural drugs makes it clear, we think, that there was no intention to extend its provisions to drugs artificially produced or to manufactures of such natural drugs. This interpretation makes the paragraph entirely consistent with other related parts of the law and avoids the necessity of considering as surplusage the provision for "extract of nutgalls, aqueous," a product which is specially provided for in paragraph 22 at the same rate of duty as that prescribed for "nutgalls" in paragraph 20.