BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 16, 1912. No. 27614.-EMBOSSED POST CARDS-PRINTED MATTER.-Protest 426618 of William H. Stiner & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protest sustained as to embossed post cards. Abstract 24233 (T. D. 31070) followed. No. 27615.-SURFACE-COATED PAPER BOXES, EMBOSSED.-Protest 530489 of A. Strauss & Co. (New York). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question consists of paper boxes for razors. The return of the local appraiser on the face of the invoice reads "surfacecoated paper boxes," and duty was assessed at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1909. The local appraiser reports that the surface-coated paper covering these razor cases is an embossed paper and that his return should have been made under the provisions of paragraph 411, at 5 cents per pound and 30 cent per ad valorem. The importers contest the assessment at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 418 as surface-coated paper boxes, and relief is sought only on such boxes "as were assessed at more than 5 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem." If the rate of 5 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem is less than 45 per cent ad valorem, they seek to invoke it; if it is more, they do not desire to have it applied. The collector states in his report to this board that the protest appears partly valid, and that his office stands ready to reliquidate. We believe, however, that this willingness to sustain the said protest in part is based on an erroneous construction of the law. The protest appears to us to be untenable. Paper boxes covered with embossed surface-coated paper are covered by paragraph 411, and likewise by paragraph 418. The provisions in both paragraphs for the said goods have been held to be equally specific, and it has been further determined that the provisions of paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909, require that the higher of these applicable rates shall be applied on paper boxes covered with embossed surface-coated paper. Woolworth v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 120; T. D. 31119). The protest must therefore be overruled. No. 27616.-MORTISER-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protest 477041 of W. White (Port Huron). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The machine here in question is a woodworking machine tool known as a mortiser. It is invoiced as an "Oliver radial-compensating chain mortiser, complete," and is used as a power tool for mortising in sash, door, and blind factories. The claim in the protest that the said machine is entitled to entry at 30 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, for "machine tools" is sustained. The decision of the collector assessing duty at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199 of said act as manufactures of metal, not specially provided for, is accordingly modified. No. 27617.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 493606, etc., of Robert B. Ways et al. (Baltimore), protests 442590, etc., of B. Illfelder & Co. (Boston), protests 40847931630, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (Chicago), protests 410496, etc., of George Borgfeldt & Co. et al. (Galveston), protest 531269 of Cornelius Kahlen (New York), protests 465757, etc., of B. Illfelder & Co. et al. (Philadelphia), and protests 4465791 etc., of Sanborn, Vail & Co. et al. (San Francisco). Opinions by Fischer, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27618.-SPUN SILK YARN.-Protest 442988 of E. Mommer (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protest sustained as to spun silk yarn. United States v. Bouchsein (T. D. 31954) followed. No. 27619.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 446713, etc., of Hacker & Rosenbaum et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests abandoned. No. 27620.-EMBROIDERED FANS.-Protest 417696-32911 of B. F. Morris (Chicago), protest 322722 of Quong Yee Wo (New York), and protests 387289, etc., of Chee Chong & Co. et al. (San Francisco). Opinions by Cooper, G. A. Protests sustained as to embroidered fans on the authority of United States v. Harper (T. D. 31655). No. 27621.-ETAMINES.-Protest 338534 of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Fabrics classified as etamines under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as cotton cloth (par. 306), as claimed by the importers. G. A. 6804 (T. D. 29259) followed. No. 27622.-DRAWN WORK-SCALLOPED ARTICLES.-Protests 417860, etc., of Neuss, Hesslein & Co., and protest 363286 of Bernhard Ullmann & Co. (New York). Opinions by Cooper, G. A. Protests sustained as to drawnwork and scalloped articles. G. A. 6993 (T. D. 30442) and G. A. 6966 (T. D. 30271) followed. No. 27623.-COTTON YARN.-Protests 387794, etc., of Massce & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Cotton yarn was held to have been classified under the wrong subdivision of paragraph 302, tariff act of 1897. Protests sustained. Abstract 25529 (T. D. 31568) followed. No. 27624.-LAMP WICKING.-Protest 505677 of International Forwarding Co. (New York). Merchandise classified as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as lamp wicking (par. 330). Protest sustained. COOPER, General Appraiser: sification is stated as follows: * * * The ground of the appraiser's advisory clas While these goods may be used as wicks for some lamp of special construction and character, it is believed they are not the ordinary wicking of commerce. The record shows that the article is used in a kerosene lamp and that it conducts kerosene to the flame after receiving it from another wick, acting as a feeder. This is the function of a lamp wick, and the fact that it is used in some particular kind of a lamp is, in our opinion, of no consequence. * * * No. 27625.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 410916, etc., of H. Glass & Co. et al., protests 490941, etc., of Rusch & Co., protests 443138, etc., of Samstag & Hilder Bros. et al., and protest 511551 of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. (New York), protest 495984 of G. S. Bush & Co. (Port Townsend), protests 448652, etc., of Ralph Pierson & Co. et al. (St. Louis), and protests 478517, etc., of R. Valdecilla y Co. et al. (San Juan). Opinions by Cooper, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 16, 1912. No. 27626.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES.-Protest 494749 of P. E. Sargent (Boston). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Various kinds of Japanese articles were held free of duty under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, as artistic antiquities more than 100 years old. No. 27627.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 523710, etc., of Wing Wo Chong & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27628.-LEAKAGE OF VERMUTH.-Protest 508717 of G. S. Nicholas & Co. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The board sustained a claim for an allowance of duty on account of leakage of vermuth imported under the act of 1909. United States v. Wile (178 Fed. Rep., 269; T. D. 30449) followed. No. 27629.-TARE-WEIGHT OF SUGAR BAGS SHORTAGE.-Protests 441894-3610, etc., of American Sugar Refining Co. (New Orleans). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The board held that it was improper to dry sugar bags before ascertaining their weight for the purpose of figuring tare. Protests sustained on the authority of Abstract 24706 (T. D. 31255). A further claim for allowance of duty on account of shortage was sustained. No. 27630.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 476006 of T. Hofeller & Co. (Buffalo), protests 501280-3754, etc., of Texas & Pacific Railway Co. et al. (New Orleans), and protest 488840 of G. S. Nicholas & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27631.—TEA COVERINGS.-Protests 507727, etc., of Quong Yee Wo (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Paper boxes covered with colored cotton fabrics were held to be the usual coverings of tea and therefore free of duty. Protest 507727 sustained. No. 27632.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 526882 of A. Lubarsky, and protests 523621, etc., of Maldurmin Importing Co. et al. (New York), and protests 474275, etc., of W. Schade & Co. et al. (St. Louis). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27633.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 456479, etc., of Freydberg Bros. et al. (New York). Protests abandoned. BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 19, 1911. No. 27634.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 319872, etc., of Ashcroft Manufacturing Co. (Bridgeport), and protest 521033 of Cohn & Rosenberger (New York). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27635.-WILLOW SHEETS.-Protests 496853, etc., of A. Eckstein (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Willow sheets classified under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, as bleached, were held dutiable as unbleached under the same paragraph, as claimed by the importer. Abstract 24325 (T. D. 31103) followed. No. 27636.-NATURAL FRUIT OIL.-ESSENTIAL OIL.-Protests 578624, etc., of No. 27637.-WALRUS LEATHER-ROUGH LEATHER.-Protest 525406 of BaileyLebby Co. (Charleston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Walrus leather classified as leather not specially provided for, under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as rough leather under the same paragraph. Protest sustained. Abstract 23769 (T. D. 30828) followed. No. 27638.—Protests OVERRULED.-Protest 535311 of F. W. Myers & Co., and protest 517405 of A. G. Spaulding & Brother (Plattsburg). Opinions by McClelland, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 19, 1912. No. 27639.-PAPER LABELS-Printed MATTER.-Protests 573325, etc., of American Bead Co. (Boston). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Paper labels classified as lithographically printed paper articles under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, were found not to have been printed by a lithographic process and were held dutiable as printed matter (par. 416), as claimed by the importers. Abstract 26258 (T. D. 31813) followed. No. 27640.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 515800-3777 of Illinois Central Railroad Co. (New Orleans). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protest overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 19, 1912. No. 27641.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES.-Protest 516617 of American Express Co. (Boston). Opinion by Waite, G. A, Gilded wooden columns, elaborately carved with small human figures arranged in a spiral effect upon the shafts of the columns, were held free of duty under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, as artistic antiquities more than 100 years old. No. 27642.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 516620, etc., of Joseph S. Seabury (Boston), protest 284138 of M. Mennella (New York), and protest 529946 of Albert Stork (Philadelphia). Opinions by Waite, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 27643. PERSONAL EFFECTS.-Protest 508364 of F. R. Gillespie (Buffalo). Opinion by Hay, G. A. A fur muff and stole where held free of duty under paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909, as personal effects. Protest sustained on the authority of G. A. 6965 (T. D. 30270). No. 27644.-PROTESTS OVERFULED.-Protests 537517, etc., of Estabrook & Eaton et al. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 20, 1912. No. 27645.-SILK ORGANZINE-SILK WASTE.-Protest 573248 of Universal Textile Co. (New York). HOWELL, General Appraiser: The goods in question are described in the invoice as "colored silk waste ends." They were imported in five bales, aggregating 1,988.71 pounds, of which 578 pounds, or about 29 per cent of the entire importation, were returned by the appraiser as "thrown silk organzine, ungummed," and were assessed for duty by the collector at the rate of $1.50 per pound under the provisions of para. graph 398, tariff act of 1909. The remaining goods were assessed for duty as waste not specially provided for at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 479 of said act. The claim relied on by the importers is that all the goods are free of duty as silk waste under paragraph 673 of said act. The importers admit that 25 or 30 per cent of the goods covered by the importation is similar to the merchandise assessed for duty as "organzine." It appears from the testimony that this class of merchandise consists of the ends of the warp or organzine threads which have been eliminated or left over during the process of weaving; that after the completion of the fabric or after the same has been taken from the loom these threads or ends are cut from the silk warp and reeled into skeins, in which condition they are used for making pompons, tassels, and other similar articles. While the testimony is somewhat conflicting, we think it clearly appears therefrom that these ends are what are known as "organzine warp ends" and not as silk waste. In G. A. 3601 (T. D. 17410) the board found that similar merchandise was "known in trade as organzine or organzine warp or warp ends," and held that it was properly dutiable as such under paragraph 410, tariff act of 1890. * * On the authority of that decision we hold that the goods assessed for duty as "organzine" are properly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 398 of said act for 'organzine * if ungummed, wholly or in part, or if further advanced by any process of manufacture," at the rate assessed. Note Cohen v. United States (180 Fed. Rep., 634; T. D. 30803). The remaining goods also consist of the warp thread ends which have not been consumed in the process of manufacture, and which have been cut from the warp threads and thrown aside as waste after the completion of the fabric in the construction of which they were used. They are not, however, reeled into skeins as is the merchandise herein held dutiable as organzine warp ends, but are imported in a snarled and tangled condition, mixed with small pieces or fragments of silk, and appear to be of shorter length than the threads reeled into skeins. The uncontradicted testimony of all the witnesses is that this merchandise is recognized and known in the trade as "silk waste." It appears to be the natural waste product resulting from the manufacture of woven silk fabrics which has been thrown aside as unfit for further use. The provision for silk waste in paragraph 673 is without words of limitation, and as the record shows that this merchandise is recognized in the trade as silk waste we conclude that it is to be so classified. The protest is sustained to this extent and the entry will be reliquidated accordingly. In all other respects the protest is overruled. (T. D. 32162.) PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 587). 1. CUSTOMS USAGE. It is only in a case where there is a doubt as to the meaning of the statute itself that the usage of the customs may be held to determine the construction of that statute. 2. SIMILITUDE Clause. That the article here contains no wool must be assumed, but it appears certainly to be felt, and since its use is substantially the same with woolen felt, there being shown a similar though not identical use, it is dutiable under the similitude clause, tariff act of 1909.-United States v. Roessler (137 Fed. Rep., 770). United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 11, 1912. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7157 (T. D. 31253). [Decision affirmed.] Sidney G. McKay and Clarence M. Brown for appellant. D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Charles D. Lawrence on the brief), for the United States. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, Barber, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. DE VRIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise consists of a mat of unwoven hair, alleged to be composed in part of wool. It was returned for duty as "unwoven |