Puslapio vaizdai

Promotion and Encouragement of Art from your decision assessing additional duty of 10 per cent., under the provisions of section 2970, Revised Statutes, on certain paintings and other works of art known as “The Verestchagin Collection,” imported into your port per La Normandie, on the 8th of October, 1888, which were entered for exhibition under the provisions of section 2508 of the Revised Statutes, as contained in the act of March 3, 1883.

It appears that upon such entry of the collection, and the giving of the bond prescribed by the section mentioned, a conditional free entry was granted as therein authorized, and that after the expiration of one year from the date of such conditional free entry (the time of the bond having been extended six months) the appellants made due entry for consumption and paid duty on the articles, whereupon you required payment of the additional duty of 10 per cent. prescribed by said section.

The question involved in this case was duly submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury for consideration, and the Department is now in receipt of a letter, dated the 28th ultimo, from that officer, in which he advises that, as the merchandise in question was not deposited in a public or private bonded warehouse, but was entered under a special provision of law which was inconsistent with the warehouse provisions of the statutes, the additional duty prescribed by said section 2970 did not accrue.

The Department concurs in the views of the Solicitor that the provisions of said section do not apply to a case of this kind, and that the merchandise was not liable to the said additional duty, and decides that the appeal is well taken.

You will reliquidate the entry accordingly and take the necessary steps for refunding the said additional duty. Respectfully yours,


Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y.


Reimportation of American Whisky-Entry of, under section 2500, Revised


TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 4, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, relative to the application of Messrs. Paris, Allen & Co. for permission to enter certain returned American whisky under section 2500, Revised Statutes.

The applicants state that said whisky was shipped to Hamilton, Bermuda, for sale, and that, not having been sold abroad, and there being a demand for the same in the market of this country, the whisky was reimported.

It appears that when the application was first presented to your office it was denied for the reason that in a somewhat similar case the reimported liquors were held to have been exported with the intention of reimporting the same.

You state, however, that in the present case your office has no information which would justify a doubt as to the truthfulness of the statements contained in the application, and no good reason is perceived why it should not be granted.

You further state that similar applications are so frequent that it would seem to be of considerable importance to the prompt transaction of business at your port that the Department should lay down some rule for guidance in such cases.

Where application for entry, under section 2500, R. S., of returned American spirits is accompanied with an affidavit of the importers stating, and giving reasons to show, that the exportation was made in good faith and with no intention of returning the same, the application may be treated prima facie as entitled to favorable consideration, with the distinct understanding, however, that each case shall be carefully investigated by you, and that should you be thereupon satisfied that the representations of the importers are erroneous and contrary to the facts the application be denied. You will be governed accordingly in this and future similar cases. Respectfully yours,


Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y.


Amer-picon-Dutiable as a spirituous bitters or beverage, and not as a

proprietary preparation.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 6, 1890. Sir: The Department duly received your letter of October 30 last, transmitting the appeal (417x) of H. A. Curiel from your assessment of

duty, at the rate of $2 per gallon and 3 cents per bottle, under T. I., 313, on certain amer-picon, imported per Cephalonia, September 30, 1889, and returned by the appraiser at your port as spirituous bitters.

The appellant claims that the article is a proprietary preparation, and dutiable, under the provisions of T. I., 99, at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem.

Careful consideration has been given to the arguments submitted in support of his claim, and while the Department is satisfied that the article may be, and in all probability is, a proprietary preparation within the meaning of T. I., 99, it is also convinced that amer-picon is a spirituous bitters or beverage containing between 30 and 40 per cent. of alcohol (absinthe), and that it is also dutiable under the provisions for such bitters in T. I., 313. The latter imposing the higher of the two rates of duty, the article was therefore properly assessed with duty at the rate of $2 per gallon and 3 cents per bottle, under section 2499, Revised Statutes, and the rule set forth in Department's decision of May 20, 1889 (Synopsis 9386). Your assessment of duty is accordingly affirmed. Respectfully yours,


Assistant Secretary.

tary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.


Melada-Certain so-called molasses dutiable as.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 6, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, transmitting the appeal (4189x) of Messrs. Gillespie Bros. & Co. from your decision assessing duty, at the rate of $1.40 per pound, on certain so-called molasses, imported by them per Barraconta, September 28, 1889, and returned by the appraiser on the invoice as “melada, not above No. 13 Dutch standard, test 48.80, rate $1.40, and melada, not above No. 13, Dutch standard, test 23.70, rate $1.40.”

The appellants claim that the merchandise in question consists of molasses testing not above 56 degrees by the polariscope, and is therefore dutiable at the rate of 4 cents per gallon, under T. I., 241.

The appraiser reporting on this appeal states that the merchandise "was sampled on October 1 last, and an inspection of the sample representing the same showed the article to be one closely resembling

[ocr errors]

melada, being of a pasty nature and almost if not quite semi-solid in substance; that it was not the liquid residuum drained or purged from sugar held by the Department in Synopsis 5725, paragraph 42, as constituting molasses, but a product which from its appearance had been damaged to some extent in the boiling preparatory to its manufacture into sugar, and that in the trade the same would not be bought and sold as molasses."

In view of this report, the Department is of the opinion that the merchandise being neither the molasses nor the “melada” of commerce is properly dutiable by assimilation in pursuance of section 2499, Revised Statutes, etc., under the provisions of T. I., 236, for melada, that being the highest rate; and your decision assessing duty thereon at the rate prescribed by said paragraph for melada testing by the polariscope not above 75 degrees is therefore hereby affirmed. Respectfully yours,


Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y.

(9799.) Seizures Release of, under Synopsis 8014, computation of home values, and

fractional parts of a dollar.





TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 8, 1890. SIR: *

*, You are informed that it is the practice at other ports, under the rulings of the Department, in reporting releases (under Synopsis 8014), to compute the home value of seizures by adding the duties to the foreign value (see article 1096, Regulations, and Department's decision of February 4, 1880, Synopsis 4411); also that the Department has approved their further practice in disregarding, with respect to seizure cases of small value, the rule contained in article 1250, Regulations 1884, as to fractional parts of a dollar and in collecting the exact amounts due in each case.

You will be governed accordingly in reporting releases made by you under said decision. Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR, (Rem. 2300.)

Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Milwaukee, Wis.

(9800.) Dutiable value— When foreign tax or duty is not to be included in.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 9, 1890. SIR: The letter of Assistant Appraiser Birdsall, with your indorsement, of the 16th ultimo, is received, concerning cotton velvets imported from Germany, which were there dyed and completed from fabrics imported into that country in the grey and exported with allowance of a rebate of the duty paid on the raw fabric. The question is submitted as to whether the German duties should be estimated as an element of dutiable value of the goods.

As stated by the assistant appraiser, the question now raised was long since determined by the court (the Department acquiesing, Synopsis 775) to the effect that where goods are purchased in bond in a foreign country the tax or duty does not form an element of market value.

It is therefore suggested that upon appraisal of the merchandise mentioned, action should be had in conformity to such ruling. Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR, (30111 f.)

Assistant Secretary.

tary. M. W. COOPER, Esq.,

United States Appraiser, New York, N. Y.

(9801.) Re-imported American whisky-No drawback of duties on exportation.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 9, 1890. GENTLEMEN: In your letter of the 30th ultimo, addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which was replied to by that officer on the 4th instant, you inquired if a drawback of duties paid under section 2500, Revised Statutes, as contained in act of March 3, 1883, on re-imported domestic whisky, will be allowed on its again being exported, this time to Mexico.

You are informed in reply that when such merchandise is re-imported, it is subject to customs duty, the same, however, being equivalent to the internal-revenue tax, and that if the duty is paid, and the merchandise is delivered from the custody of the officers of the customs, no return of the duties can be made upon its subsequent re-exportation, inasmuch as section 3025, Revised Statutes, prescribes :

No return of the duties shall be allowed on the export of any merchandise after it has been removed from the custody and control of the

« AnkstesnisTęsti »