Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

SIR: The department is in receipt of your report of the 29th ultimo, further in regard to certain 125 bales of wool, embraced in Schedule C, previously submitted by you, from which it appears that the merchandise in question is the same as that covered by appeal No. 88e, upon which you reported on the 27th of April last, and as to which the department, on the 17th of August last, affirmed your assessment of duty at the rate of 4 cents per pound.

The action of the department, in affirming your decision, was based upon your report that the rate of duty on said merchandise would be the same, whether the assessment was made under department's instructions of October 21, 1875, or those of March 25, 1876, the addition of the export duty being sufficient to raise the price of the wool above 12 cents per pound.

It now appears, however, that this statement was erroneous, and that the value of the wool is not carried above 12 cents per pound by the addition of the export duty.

It further appearing that the withdrawal of the wool in question was made subsequently to said instructions of March 25, 1876, the department hereby revokes its former action based upon an erroneous statement of facts, and sustains the appeal in question.

You are therefore instructed to prepare and forward to the depart ment a certified statement for refund of the excess of duties exacted.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.

CHAS. F. CONANT,

Acting Secretary.

EXHIBIT B.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., June 30, 1876.

SIR: The department is in receipt of your report dated the 26th instant, with inclosures, relating to the classification for duty of an im portation (or a portion thereof) of calf-hair goods, per "Baltic," May 2, 1876, consigned to H. Herrman & Co., being cases marked "H. H. & Co., 19097/8," covered by appeal 7044"

In view of the reports of the respective experts, Messrs. Piffard and Torrey, and of the explanatory letter, under date of 10th instant, from Professor Barnard, the latter relating to the circumstances or differences in the reports of the experts, which should be regarded as constituting a substantial agreement or disagreement in the results of their respective examinations, the department is of opinion that there is a substantial agreement between said experts upon the samples representing the cases above mentioned.

You are therefore hereby authorized and instructed, it appearing that such samples do not contain any appreciable quantity of wool, to regard the importations which they represent as embraced within the instructions under date of the 26th ult. relating to importations per the "Republic" and "Celtic," and to reliquidate the entry accordingly, forwarding also the necessary certificate for refund.

Respectfully,

By order:

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

C. F. BURNAM,

Assistant Secretary.

EXHIBIT C.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., September 11,.1876.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, reporting on the appeal (1025) of J. Lee Smith & Co., from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem (as a painter's color) on certain oxide of iron imported per "Somerset" June 1, 1876, which the importers claim to be exempt from duty under the provision in the "free-list" for "colcothar, dry, or oxide of iron."

It appears from your report and an examination of a sample that the merchandise, although finely levigated and prepared for use as a pig. ment or polishing powder, is not the "Indian" red nor any other preparation of oxide of iron which is specially enumerated in the tariff, but is in fact the colcothar, dry, or oxide of iron, which is specified in the free-list.

Under these circumstances, the department is of opinion that the article, being thus specially provided for, cannot by reason of its capability for use as a "painter's color," or otherwise, be diverted from such classification or made liable to duty under the general provision referred to by the appraiser for "painters' colors not otherwise provided for."

You are, therefore, hereby authorized to adjust the entry accordingly. This ruling will also apply to the appeals (1381 and 1382) of the same importers on their entries of such merchandise per Columbo,"

66

July 10, and "Hindoo," June 24, 1876, which were reported upon by you on the 26th ultimo.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

EXHIBIT D.

CHAS. F. CONANT,

Acting Secretary.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., December 15, 1876.

SIR: The department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 9th instant, from the United States Solicitor-General, in which he expresses the opinion that no writ of error should be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Samuel Cary vs. Arthur, (N. S., 2613.) This opinion is concurred in by the Attorney-General. The suit in question was tried at the October term for 1875, in the United States circuit court of the southern district of New York, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff.

The case in question involves the dutiable character of certain descriptions of burr-stones.

The plaintiff claimed that burr-stones of two classes were, under the law, exempt from duty, as follows: First, solid burr-stones, circular in form, faced on one side and on the edge, and with a hole cut through the center; and, second, sections of burr-stones imported in casks, sized and cut, so as to be put together for the purpose of being manufactured or bound up into millstones.

This claim was based upon the 23d section of the act of March 2, 1861, which exempted from duty burr-stones, wrought or unwrought, but unmanufactured, not bound up into millstones. This provision is re-enacted substantially in the free list of the Revised Statutes, which reads, "burr-stones in blocks, rough or unmanufactured, and not bound up into millstones;" and the two provisions are regarded as identical in their effect. The judgment sustains the position taken by the plaintiff, and in view of the opinion of the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, the department decides to acquiesce in the judgment so obtained, and you are, therefore, directed to take the proper steps for its payment, and to hereafter cause the practice at your port to conform thereto, as regards the dutiable classification of such merchandise.

In cases of like character, upon which the requirements of the law have been observed as to protest, appeal, and suit, proceedings will be taken for reliquidation of entries, and certified statements will be prepared and forwarded to this department.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

L. M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

EXHIBIT E.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., September 26, 1876.

SIR. The department is in receipt of your report of the 21st instant, with accompanying schedules, embracing, as you allege, all cases at your port, whether in suit or not, involving the question of the duty on

so called terne tin, and asking further instructions as to the disposition thereof.

For reply, you are informed that the department, with the concurrence of the Attorney-General, aquiesces in the judgment recently recovered against the defendant in the case of Auchincloss against Arthur, (N. S., 2936,) in which it was judicially determined that the merchandise in question is subject to duty at the rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem, under section 4 of the act of June 6, 1872, reproduced in schedule E of the consolidated tariff.

Referring to section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, you are authorized to prepare and forward certified statements for refund of duties upon all entries embraced in Schedule A accompanying your report, except the last three, as to which it appears suit was not commenced in proper time.

With reference to the first entry in Schedule B, consisting of thirty-nine packages imported, per "City of Montreal," by J. & H. Auchincloss, you will report whether the parties have duly complied with the law relating to protest, appeal, and commencement of suit.

The schedules referred to, which are herewith returned as requested, you will retransmit with your further report.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

L. M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

EXHIBIT F.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., August 15, 1876.

SIR: The department is in receipt of a communication from the United States district attorney at New York, reporting that during the last circuit Judge Wallace decided the case of J. H. Murray vs. C. A. Arthur in favor of the plaintiff, and recommending that the amount for which the verdict was given should be paid, for the reason that the sum is not large, and that the case is so peculiar in its facts that it is not likely to serve as a precedent for any other.

These facts were substantially as follows: certain extract of beef, entered at a value less than the market-rate, was seized, and proceedings were commenced in the district court for its forfeiture.

The claimant admitted the forfeiture, which was subsequently remitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, on condition that duties should be paid or the beef exported.

A portion of the beef was exported, and the plaintiff paid to the collector of customs the penal duty of 20 per cent. which accrued by reason of the undervaluation of the merchandise on entry.

The action was to recover from the collector this penal duty, namely, $400.

The department does not agree with the decision of the court, but, for the reasons expressed by the district attorney, deems it expedient to pay the judgment from which the Attorney-General, in his letter dated the 25th instant [ultimo] certifies that no writ of error will be taken. On the entry of satisfaction of said judgment, you will take the neces sary steps for refunding the penal duties exacted as aforesaid.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OR CUSTOMS, New York.

L. M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

EXHIBIT G.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C. November 28, 1876.

SIR: In view of the special report of the appraiser, transmitted by you under date of the 26th ultimo, after the special examination authorized by the department on the 16th ultimo, and of the evidence accompanying the same, all relating to the classification of brimstone, whether crude or refined, the department, having carefully examined and considered such evidence and report, adopts the following conclusions as stated by the appraiser, to wit:

(1.) The article known in commerce as crude brimstone is brimstone procured from sulphurous ore by the process of roasting, fusing, or smelting, by which it is separated from rock and earthy matter, but which leaves it in a state of impurity, the pure native sulphur found in the ore being mingled with the impure portions thereof.

(2.) The only article known in commerce as refined brimstone is that which is obtained from the crude brimstone by the process of vaporization and sublimation, which releases the sulphur from all foreign matter, and leaves it chemically pure. It is found in commerce under the designation of virgin rock brimstone, roll brimstone, and flowers of sulphur. Crude brimstone is always shipped in bulk, whereas the refined article cannot be so shipped, without destroying or greatly impairing its commercial value.

(3.) The brimstone embraced in the appeals of Messrs. Battelle & Renwick, and other importers, all of whom are represented by Mr. Grenelle, as their attorney, was imported in bulk from Sicily, and had been there obtained from the sulphurous ore by the rude process of roasting, or smelting, which is the only process there applied-and had been thus separated from the rock and earthy matter, but was not entirely freed from impurities. This brimstone was therefore, in view of the evidence that has been produced by Mr. Grenelle, commercially known and regarded as crude brimstone; and, as the evidence produced would appear to conclusively establish that fact, I ain constrained to believe that the merchandise was erroneously classified in this department as "refined brimstone," subject to duty at the rate of $10 per ton, and that it should have been classified as crude brimstone, exempt from duty under section 2505 of the Revised Statutes.

The evidence supporting these conclusions, consisting of the testimony of foreign producers and dealers in the article, and of domestic importers, refiners, and other experts, is so abundant, direct, and clear, that there would seem to be no room for doubt on the subject.

You are therefore hereby authorized and instructed to return to the appraiser for reconsideration the invoices of such importations of brimstone alleged to be crude as have not been withdrawn under protest. With reference to importations withdrawn on payment of duties under protest and appeal, further specific instructions will be given.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

LOT M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

EXHIBIT H.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., November 21, 1876.

SIR Referring to instructions addressed to you under date of the 19th of July last, informing you of my determination to adhere to the position theretofore taken by the department in the matter of the assessment of duty on "striped and fancy Italians," so called, until after a trial of one of the suits then pending in court, which involved the question, I now have to state that the department is in receipt of a communication, dated the instant, from the U. S. attorney at New York,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »