(9834.) Fancy boxes-Porcelain jewel-cases dutiable as-Glass puff-boxes not dutiable as. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 3, 1890. SIR: Referring to previous correspondence in the matter of the appeal (3287 x) of the E. Jaccard Jewelry Company, from your assessment of duty, at the rates of 60 per cent. and 45 per cent. ad valorem, respectively, on certain porcelain or china jewel-cases and cut-glass puff-boxes, imported in November last, and also at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem, on certain opera-glasses contained in the same importation, I have to state that the matter has been given careful consideration by the Department, and a report thereon obtained from the Conference of Local Appraisers recently in session at New York, from which it appears that the jewel-cases consist of handsomely ornamented china jewel cases or boxes with hinged lids, which, in their opinion, were unquestionably fancy boxes, and as such provided for under T. I., 390, at the rate claimed by the appellants, the commercial designation gov erning the classification of such articles, regardless of the materials of which the boxes might be composed. "The glass puff-boxes," to quote the language of the Conference, "while known commercially as boxes, are not boxes within the meaning of the tariff act," nor are so-called glass boxes of this description invoiced or recognized commercially as fancy boxes. They assimilate closely to covered glass butter-dishes, sugar-bowls, etc., and according to the views of the Conference were properly assessed with duty as articles of glass, cut, under T. I., 135. The opera-glasses are reported by the appraiser at your port as manufactures of metal, glass, and mother-of-pearl, the metal and glass chief value, and to have been returned for duty under Department's decisions (Synopses 5977 and 6154). Your assessment of duty as to these opera-glasses and the so-called puff-boxes being in accordance with the decisions cited, and, as to the latter articles, with Department's decision of July 18, 1889 (Synopsis 9494), is hereby affirmed. The Department concurs with the views of the Conference of Appraisers as to the dutiable character of the jewel-cases, and you are accordingly authorized to reliquidate the entry at the rate claimed by the appellants, and to take the necessary steps for refunding the excess of duty exacted. * SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, St. Louis, Mo. Assistant Secretary. (9835.) Classification-Rule where component materials of any article are separately invoiced, etc. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 3, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 23d of December last, transmitting the appeal (4622 x) of the E. Jaccard Jewelry Company from your assessment of duty, at the rate of 60 per cent. ad valorem, on certain bronze mountings for porcelain vases, the appellants claiming the bronze mountings to be dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem under T. I., 216. The bronze mountings, it appears from your report, are necessary and indispensable parts of certain vases contained in the same importation, but which are invoiced separately, and which the appellants claim should be separately classified for duty. You state that they bear the same factory or marginal number as the vases, showing that one is incomplete without the other, and that the mountings have bolts and not attachments, which are necessary to hold the porcelain portion in position to make a complete and salable vase, and that you accordingly treated the vase and bronze mounting as an entirety, and assessed duty at the rate applicable to the component material of chief value under section 2499, Revised Statutes. The rule governing such cases heretofore has been that where component materials of any imported article are separately invoiced and entered, and are readily separable for the purpose of classification, that they should be assessed with duty at rates applicable to the several components. (See decision of January 18, 1879, Synopsis 3855.) No reason is seen for departing from this rule, and you are accordingly authorized to reliquidate the entry at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 216, and to take the necessary steps for refunding the excess of duty exacted. Respectfully yours, (4622 x.) GEORGE C. TICHENOR, SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, St. Louis, Mo. (9836.) Manufactures in part of wool-Certain so-called linen lace tidies dutiable as. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 4, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th ultimo, submitting the appeal (5841x) of Messrs. Marshall Field & Co. from your assessment of duty, at the rates of 50 per cent. ad valorem and 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent. ad valorem, on certain tidies, imported by them at your port, Entry No. 9697, December 2, 1889. The appellants claim that the tidies in question are dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem as "linen lace," under T. I., 337, or at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem as "manufactures of flax," under T. I., 334. The tidies, it appears, are manufactured of wool, worsted, jute thread, tinsel, and silk, and the collector of customs at New York reports, under date of the 30th ultimo, that such goods are classified for duty at that port at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent. ad valorem under T. I., 362. The tidies being composed in part of wool are properly dutiable as manufactures in part of wool, and you are hereby authorized to readjust the entry accordingly, and to take measures for collecting the balance of duty found to be due. General appraisers—Authority for official visits to other ports. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 4, 1890. SIR: Excepting as prescribed in Department's letter to you of June 17, 1889 (Synopsis 9440), as to visiting New York for the purpose of attending regular meetings of the Board of United States General Appraisers, general appraisers will hereafter refrain from making visits to ports other than those at which they may be permanently stationed, without first obtaining authority from the Department for so doing. No bills for traveling expenses will be allowed or paid by the Department unless accompanied by copies of the orders or instructions under which the expenses were incurred. Articles 1399 and 1403 of the Regulations and Department's Circular of February 11, 1885 (No. 20), will be considered as modified accordingly. Respectfully yours, (2084 c.) GEORGE C. TICHENOR, DONALD MCLEAN, Esq., General Appraiser, New York, N. Y. (9838.) Colors and paints—Certain "Indian red” dutiable as, and not as a polishing powder. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 4, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, reporting further on the appeals (3330w and 3354 w) of Messrs. G. A. & E. Meyer from your assessment of duty, at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem, on certain Indian red, imported by them per Buffalo, May 18, and Colorado, May 2, 1889, and claimed to be dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem, under the provision in T. I., 479, for "polishing powders of every description, by whatever name known, including Frankfort black, and Berlin, Chinese, fig and wash blue." In the case of the Zucker & Levett Chemical Company vs. Daniel Magone (Synopsis 9265), the court held that the provision in T. I., 87, for "colors and paints, not specially enumerated or provided for" must be construed as if it read "colors and paints, excepting such as are used as polishing powders," and that it is not necessary to show that the predominant use of the article is as a polishing powder, provided it appears that there is at least a substantial use of this kind of article for that purpose. The Department acquiesced in said decision and accepted it as the correct rule for the construction of the two provisions of law. In this case, however, the appraiser reports that the article is specially prepared to produce the particular shade of color commercially known as Indian red, and that so far "as he could learn its chief and probably sole use is as a color." It being understood that it differs from the Indian red referred to in the Report of the Conference of Local Appraisers, July 8 to 18, 1889, page 9, which they state is "to a considerable extent used as a polishing powder," the Department is of opinion that it was properly classified as a color under T. I., 87. Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. Respectfully yours, GEORGE C. TICHENOR, Assistant Secretary. (3330 w.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y. 1 (9839.) Antiquities-What constitutes a collection of. (Baumgarten vs. Magone.) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 4, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter from the United States attorney at New York, dated the 29th ultimo, in which he reports the trial of the case of William Baumgarten (Herter Brothers) against Daniel Magone, late collector (N. S., 12450), resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendant by direction of the court. The question involved in said suit was whether one black Persian rug, one pair of real lace curtains, four coverlets made of ancient lace, and two little covers were subject to duty under the appropriate provisions of the tariff, or were exempt from duty under the provisions in T. I., 669, for "cabinets of coins, medals, and all other collections of antiquities." The opinion of the court was to the effect that the term "collection of antiquities" imports "a collection of articles where both the antiqueness of the individual articles and the circumstance that they are assembled together into a collection unite to make them attractive or useful or valuable or otherwise desirable;" that the term does not embrace articles which are grouped together by the mere accident of enumeration upon the same invoice, and that the chance aggregation of two or more articles can not fairly be held to be a collection of antiquities. The Department is satisfied that this is the correct interpretation of said provision of law, and you will hereafter be governed thereby in the classification of articles of antique production or manufacture. All decisions of a contrary tenor are hereby revoked. The rule, however, laid down in the Department's instructions of February 15, 1887 (Synopsis 8058), that articles produced subsequently to the year 1700 are not entitled to exemption from duty under said provision of law, is not affected by the decision of the court in this case, and is still in force. Respectfully yours, GEORGE C. TICHENOR, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y. (8160 r.) |