chamois skins in paragraph 451 of the tariff act of 1909 or 15 per cent ad valorem under the provision for "all other leather" in the same paragraph. The same question was presented to the board in protest 409712, and on the record as made in that case it was held (G. A. 7365; T. D. 32526) that such crust chamois skins were not the chamois skins of commerce and never dealt in as such. In deciding that case we said: It is true that these split sheepskins have been tanned by the same special processes followed in the preparation of the finished chamois skins of commerce, but it is unquestioned that as imported the skins are nevertheless not finished so as to be adaptable to any of the practical uses to which chamois skins are ordinarily applied (see Ex. 1 and Illus. Ex. A). It also appears to be the fact that they are known in trade as crust chamois, and are never, in the condition imported, dealt in as chamois skins. The foregoing was based, of course, upon the testimony submitted, which would have warranted no other conclusion than that reached, but in the case at bar a very different state of facts is presented. The Government has supplemented the testimony submitted on its behalf in the former case by the testimony of witnesses of experience in handling in a commercial way these crust chamois, and have established the following facts: First. That crust chamois are finished in the sense of bing ready for use in cleaning automobiles, carriages, harness, and windows. Second. That such skins are known commercially as chamois skins and are bought and sold as such under that name. We find accordingly and hold that duty was properly assessed. G. A. 7365, supra, in so far as it is in conflict with these views, is modified accordingly. (T. D. 33144-G. A. 7426.) Mesh composed of silver. Silver mesh in strips from 6 to 9 feet long and from 9 to 10 inches wide, suitable for use in the manufacture of mesh bags and for other purposes as well, is neither mesh bags nor parts thereof, but is material out of which mesh bags may be manufactured and is properly dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures in part of metal under paragraph 199 of the act of 1909.-United States v. Simon (84 Fed., 154), Fenton v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 529; T. D. 31546). United States General Appraisers, New York, January 31, 1913. In the matter of protests 536048, etc., of S. Cottle Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: At the hearing in this case counsel for the importers limited the claim to certain silver wire-woven netting which was assessed at rates equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem as "finished or unfinished bags, purses, and other articles, or parts thereof, made in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver," under paragraph 448 of the act of 1909. The importers object to the duty assessed, and among other grounds of protest set up the claim that the merchandise is a manufacture of metal dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199 of said act. The merchandise in question, invoiced as "silver wire-woven netting," items 5514 and 5516, consists of strips of silver mesh of from 6 to 9 feet long and from 9 to 10 inches in width, suitable and of the kind generally employed in making mesh bags. The importer testified that he does manufacture mesh bags and purses out of the netting in question, but that that is not the only use to which it is put, as he also makes bandeaux, neck chains, and bracelets out of it. We are satisfied that these strips of silver mesh are neither mesh bags or purses, nor parts thereof. They are materials out of which mesh bags or purses may be manufactured and do not become "parts thereof" until they have been cut to size and made into forms and shapes suitable to be attached to the frames of the bags. The United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York reached a similar conclusion with regard to rubber tubing used in making stems for artificial flowers in the case of United States v. Simon (84 Fed., 154). The merchandise had been assessed as parts of artificial flowers and the importers claimed the same to be dutiable as manufactures of rubber. The court held that the tubing was not any finished part of an artificial flower, but was merely a material from which the stems could be made. A similar question was decided by the United States Court of Customs Appeals in the case of Fenton v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 529; T. D. 31546). In that case the merchandise consisted of pieces of cork in the form of floats for fishing lines, but the articles were not complete and had to undergo several further processes of manufacture before becoming completed cork floats. The court held that the merchandise in question was dutiable as manufactures of cork and not as parts of fishing tackle. The court said: The term "parts thereof" must refer to the completed article, whatever it may be; that is, also ready for use either alone or in connection with other articles of the angler's outfit. When ready for use it is a part of the fisherman's tackle, his outfit, one of his implements, and if not in a condition to be used of course he can not use it, and it is not fishing tackle or a part thereof. In consonance with the views expressed by the court, we find that the silver wire-woven netting involved in these protests is not mesh bags or parts thereof. We therefore sustain the protests and hold said merchandise dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199 of said act, the collector's decision relative thereto being reversed. As to all other merchandise covered by the protests and in all other respects, except as noted, the protests are overruled and the collector's decision is affirmed. (T. D. 33145.) Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. Board 1-Sharretts, McClelland, and Chamberlain. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board 3-Waite, Somerville, and Hay. BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 24, 1913. No. 31165.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 534973, etc., of Ed. Horrax et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 27, 1913. No. 31166.-DURESS.-Protests 608075-41189, etc., of Universal Shipping Co. (Chicago and New York). * * WAITE, General Appraiser: The goods in question in these cases are porcelains from Japan. The protests are practically the same, the claim being set out as follows: We * claim that the advance in value of the packing charges on this entry was made under duress, in view of the action of the United States appraiser on previous shipments of this kind of merchandise, and in order to obtain possession of the goods without the payment of additional or penal duties. It appears that the goods were entered, and from the records we find that additions were made by the importers to make market value. In each case the importer has indorsed upon a slip attached to the invoice the following: The importer wishes to add to make market value as follows (the amounts he desires to add). These additions have been approved by the appraiser except in one instance where a further amount has been added by the appraising officer. The appraisement so made has been the basis of liquidation by the collector. The claim of the importer seems to be that there was duress in the fact that he has heard that a higher value would be attached to the packing, and that he had to make an addition to meet that higher amount or pay a penalty. There is nothing to indicate that anything was said to him to induce or require him to make the additions upon entry; and the amounts at which he desired to enter the goods were indorsed upon the invoices and transmitted to the appraiser in the regular course of business. There is some testimony which evidently was introduced for the purpose of showing that the importer was aware that a higher price for packing had been exacted by the appraising officer. There is nothing in the record to indicate that an appeal was taken to a general appraiser or a board of general appraisers upon this question of the value of packing charges. We are not aware that the courts have gone so far as to hold that mere knowledge on the part of the importer that a certain price was attached to goods upon entry by the appraising officer was duress, and as such vitiated the appraisement. The importer is apparently relying upon the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals in the Stein case (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 36; T. D. 31007; 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 478; T. D. 31525.) We understand, however, that that case turned upon the point that the importer was prohibited from recording the amount at which he desired to enter the goods, and his estimate of the proper entered value was never transmitted to the appraiser, thereby rendering the appraisal void. There is nothing, however, to show that this case stands upon any such ground. Apparently all that prompted the importer to make his addition was a mental attitude induced by knowledge which he had received in a vague sort of way that the appraisers were exacting a higher valuation upon the packing of the goods in question. We do not think that this constitutes duress within the meaning of the law, and are not aware that the courts have ever so held. The protests are therefore overruled. No. 31167.-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 593927 of National Steam Navigation Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. It was claimed in this case that through clerical error duty was charged on an amount in excess of the value of the merchandise. Protest sustained. No. 31168.-Weight of Hay IN BALES.-Protest 604813 of American Hay Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protest sustained claiming that duty was assessed upon excessive weight of hay in bales. No. 31169.-AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED.-Protest 603206 of C. A. Willat (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Second-hand moving-picture cameras assessed under paragraph 108, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be free of duty as American goods returned (par. 500). Protest sustained. No. 31170.-TREASURY REGULATIONS- For the reason that the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury were not complied with, certain merchandise was assessed for duty. Protest overruled claiming free entry. No. 31171.-MODELING CLAY.-Protest 621221 of Embossing Co. (Albany). Opinion by Hay, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Embossing Co. (T. D. 32536) modeling clay or plasticine was held dutiable under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. No. 31172.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 575216, etc., of F. H. Shallus (Baltimore), protests 576257, etc., of Seamans & Cobb Co. (Boston), protest 655686 of F. W. Meyers & Co. (Burlington), protests 575218, etc., of Hawley & Letzerich (Galveston), protest 603889 of Lyons Bros. & Co. (Los Angeles), protest 610069 of William A. Brown & Co., and protest 602822 of MacMonnies & Von Elm (New York), protest 622810 of E. Dillingham (Ogdensburg), and protests 607786, etc., of Overland Freight Transfer Co. (San Francisco). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 1, January 28, 1913. No. 31173.-Gauge Glasses.-Protests 617385, etc., of A. W. Chesterton Co. (Boston). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Gauge glasses consisting of blown glass tubes cut to length held properly classified under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7399 (T. D. 32882) followed. No. 31174.-Dressed Furs.-Protests 639490, etc., of Alfred Richter et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Furs dressed on the skin and sewed into the form of mats, plates, or crosses held properly classified as manufactures of fur under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909. Carlowitz v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 172; T. D. 31681) and United States v. Richter (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167; T. D. 31680) followed. No. 31175.-FURS.-Protests 338676, etc., of Jonas & Naumburg et al. (New York) Opinion by McClelland, G. A. G. A. 7063 (T. D. 30765) and United States v. Hatters' Fur Exchange (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 31237) followed as to certain furs. Protests sustained in part. No. 81176.-Refined Wool GREASE.-Protests 569482, etc., of Lehn & Fink, and protests 656879, etc., of Theo. Seltzer et al. (New York). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests sustained claiming merchandise to be dutiable as refined wool grease under paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909. Koechl v. United States (T. D. 32619) followed. No. 31177.-COATS OF WOOL, COTTON, and India RubbeR.-Protests 643942, etc., of Abbey & Imbrie (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Coats composed of wool, cotton, and india rubber classified under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be dutiable as manufactures in chief value of rubber (par. 463). Protests overruled. Abstract 25929 (T. D. 31720) followed. No. 31178.-WOOL WEARING APPAREL.-Protests 661949, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co. (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Russian tunics composed of cotton and trimmed with wool held properly classified as wearing apparel in part of wool under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7181 (T. D. 31350) followed. No. 81179.-WOOL EMBROIDERIES.-Protest 615929-3998 of Paul L. Godchaux (New Orleans). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protest overruled as to wool embroideries classified under paragraph 383, tariff act of 1909. No. 31180.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 653158, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. et al. (Boston), protests 631674-41626, etc., of Marshall Field & Co., protests 613191-41352, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. et al., and protests 604229-40970, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. et al. (Chicago), protest 656588 of M. Hancher (Newark), and protests 646362, etc., of Austin, Baldwin & Co. et al., protests 632375, etc., of Fritzsche Bros. et al., protests 595627, etc., and 661592 of National Aniline & Chemical Co., protest 645185 of Strahl & Pitsch, protests 598864, etc., of Tokstad Burger Co. et al., and protests 601298, etc., of Orme Wilson et al. (New York). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 28, 1913. No. 31181.-RIBBONS-SILK TRIMMINGS.-Protests 553268-39373, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain silk ribbons held dutiable under paragraph 401, tariff act of 1909. Velvet ribbons held dutiable under paragraph 399. Protests sustained in part. No. 31182.-Protests OverRULED.-Protests 636554, etc., of C. Hoffbauer & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. |