Such entry shall be in triplicate, and consist of a general description of the contents of the said baggage, specifying the packages entered as free, and any of the goods in said baggage which are dutiable, and the value of the same; and each of said triplicates shall have attached thereto an extract of the manifest of the importing vessel relating to the baggage set forth in said entry, certified by the collector of customs or his deputy, one copy of which entry and a certified extract of the manifest shall be filed in the office of the collector of the port of entry as a permanent record.

ART. 685. Thereupon the entry and the required extract of the manifest must be compared by the collector, who will estimate the duties, if any, thereon, note the estimate on the face of the entry, and transmit the papers to the naval officer, if there be one, who will make a similar comparison and return the papers to the collector. Should the extract of the manifest not be obtained, the entry must contain a memorandum of the satisfactory evidence upon which it is permitted.

The entry shall be in the form prescribed in Cat. No. 934.

ART. 686. The entry having been completed, the subsequent proceedings as to shipment, transportation, and delivery shall, in all particulars, conform to the regulations governing the transportation of merchandise without appraisement.

On arrival at the port of destination, the conductor, master, or agent will report to the collector the fact that the goods have arrived, and deliver the manifest to him. The collector will compare this manifest with the entry and manifest received by mail, and will direct an inspector to take charge of the car, vessel, vehicle, safe, or trunk. The inspector will report the condition of the fastenings.

ART. 687. All invoices of merchandise intended for immediate transportation without appraisement shall be made in Sec. 5, act of quadruplicate, all of the copies to be duly certified by June 10, 1880. the consul, one of the copies to be used in making entry T. D. 9558. at the port of first arrival in the United States and one for making entry at the port of delivery. The consul shall retain one copy in his office and transmit the other to the collector at the port of destination.

T. D. 16894.

T. D. 17136.

T. D. 16894.

Section 4 of the administrative act does not apply to entries made at the first port of arrival under the act of June 10, 1880, and entries for immediate transportation, under said T. D. 12272. act, may be made at the port of first arrival on pro forma invoices, in the absence of certified invoices, without the filing of a bond at such port for the production of certified invoices, but such bond will be required on entry at port of destination.

(T. D. 25476.)

Drawback on Barry's tricopherous.

Regulations of March 24, 1896 (T. D. 16931), extended to cover new formula for the manufacture of Barry's tricopherous by Barclay & Co., of New York, in part from imported alcohol and castor oil.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 16, 1904. SIR: Department's regulations of March 24, 1896 (T. D. 16931), establishing a rate for the allowance of drawback on the exportation of "Barry's tricopherous," manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York, in part from imported alcohol and castor oil without the admixture of domestic alcohol or castor oil, are extended, as far as applicable, to cover like exportations of the preparation aforesaid under the manufacturers' supplemental changed formula, as shown by their sworn statement dated July 7, 1904, transmitted for the files of your office.

Respectfully,
(1603 h.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

H. A. TAYLOR,
Acting Secretary.

(T. D. 25477-G. A. 5741.)

Broken glass-Damage allowance.

1. Window glass, broken in transit prior to arrival in this country, but which is fit for remanufacture at the time of such arrival, is not entitled to free entry as an article of no commercial value and worthless within the principle laid down in Lawder. Stone (187 U. S., 281; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep., 79), merely because it became mixed with dirt and refuse in the warehouse of the importer after the cases containing it were unpacked.

2. Such a mixing of the glass with refuse constitutes a damage within the principle settled in United States v. Bache (59 Fed. Rep., 762; 8 C. C. A., 258), affirming In re Bache, G. A. 1539 (T. D. 12988).

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 13, 1904. In the matter of protest 106849 of Semon Bache & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers).

SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: The importations referred to in this protest consist of boxes of window glass assessed for duty by the collector under appropriate paragraphs of the glass schedule (Schedule B), without making any deduction or allowance of duty for certain portions of glass which were damaged or broken in transitu. The damaged portion of the glass in no instance amounted to as much as 10 per cent of the invoice value, and for this reason the collector declined to accept an abandonment of the merchandise offered by the

importer, under the provisions of section 23 of the customs administrative act, which reads as follows:

SEC. 23. That no allowance for damage to goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States shall hereafter be made in the estimation and liquidation of duties thereon, but the importer thereof may within ten days after entry, abandon to the United States all or any portion of goods, wares and merchandise included in any invoice and be relieved from the payment of duties on the portion so abandoned: Provided, That the portion so abandoned shall amount to ten per centum or over of the total value or quantity of the invoice, and the property so abandoned shall be sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of for the account and credit of the United States under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

The importers claim that an abatement or deduction of duty should have been made by the collector on such portions of the glass as were broken, amounting, as shown by the testimony, to about 2,700 square feet. It is claimed that this glass was worthless and commercially valueless, and that, being in this condition at the time of arrival at the port of New York, it constituted a nonimportation within the principle decided by the Supreme Court in Lawder v. Stone (187 U. S., 281; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep., 79).

The following facts seem to be established by the testimony taken at the hearing, namely:

At the time of the arrival of the glass at the port of New York a portion of it was broken so as to be unfit for the uses for which glass of this kind is commercially fitted. While a member of the importing firm testified on his direct examination that this glass was worthless, and not fit even for remanufacture, he stated on cross-examination that he had sold considerable quantities of broken glass for remanufacture which differed from the broken glass in this importation in one respect only, namely, that in the present instance this glass had been rendered unmerchantable by reason of being mixed with the dirt and packing material falling on the floor of his store where it was unpacked. The following questions and answers constituted a part of his examination:

Q. You say you have sold considerable quantities of broken glass for remanufacture? A. Yes, sir.

Q. In what respect does this broken glass differ from that customarily sold for remanufacture?-A. That broken glass is kept separate and gathered right up in packages as soon as it is cut; it is the leavings or cuttings that are resold; whereas this glass fell out of the cases, it was mixed up with the dirt and the packing material, falling on the floor.

Q. (By Judge SOMERVILLE.) It dropped on the floor when it arrived here?-A. That is, when the cases were opened in the presence of the custom-house officer. As soon

as the cover was removed, it fell out on the floor.

Q. What sort of packing material?-A. It is straw and hay.

Q. On this particular invoice, now, that you refer to here, the broken glass was less than 10 per cent of the invoice amount?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. WEBSTER.) Did it amount to less than 10 per cent of the value of the invoice?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Also to less than 10 per cent of the quantity of glass measured by quantity?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. As I understood you, the only difference between this broken glass and the broken glass that is ordinarily sold for remanufacture was that this got mixed with dirt in your warehouse after it was unpacked?-A. No, sir.

Q. What other difference was there?—A. It was mixed up in unpacking, opening

the cases.

Q. (By Judge SOMERVILLE.) Have you ever been in one of these mills where they use broken glass?-A. I have been in the mills.

Q. You have never seen it used?-A. I have never seen it used, but I have had it explained to me.

Q. Are they not able to remanufacture glass broken in small pieces?-A. Yes, sir; but it must be entirely clean of foreign material.

Q. Don't they do that cleaning in the factory?—A. No, sir.

Q. Can not do it?-A. The expense would be more than it is worth.

Q. To get out the straw and the dirt? And that is the reason you say it is not fit for remanufacture?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Mr. HAMPTON.) The question has been asked you as to wherein this broken glass differed from other broken glass which you have sold for remanufacture. Will you state again, please, wherein it differed?-A. It was mixed up with the packing material-dirt and other foreign material on the floor.

Q. Was this glass broken to any greater extent than glass which you sell for remanufacture?-A. No, sir.

Q. When you sell goods for remanufacture, what is necessary to be done to put them at the place of remanufacture? What expense is incurred?-A. It must be crated and boxed.

Q. Is that what you always do in shipping goods for remanufacture?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. (By Judge SOMERVILLE.) Do you know whether these manufacturing establishments do not fuse broken glass over again, prior to manufacturing it? A. Yes, sir; they do.

Q. (By Mr. WEBSTER.) Is that the only way they remanufacture it; melt it up again? A. Yes, sir.

The reasonable inference from the testimony is that the broken glass in question at the time of its arrival was not worthless, but was fit for remanufacture, and was rendered unfit for this purpose, if at all, by reason of being mixed with straw and dirt in the process of unpacking, which was done by the importers themselves after the goods came into their possession. In our judgment, the case is one which does not fall within the rule settled by the Supreme Court in the Lawder case, but comes directly within the principle settled by the circuit court of appeals in United States v. Bache (59 Fed. Rep., 762; 8 C. C. A., 258), which affirmed Board decision In re Bache, G. A. 1539 (T. D. 12988), and reversed the decision of the circuit court in the same case, reported in 54 Federal Reporter (371). It was held in that case that where window glass was broken in transit, so that part of it was useless for remanufacture, the broken part was not admissible under paragraph 590 of the free list of the tariff act of 1890 as broken glass, but the whole was dutiable as window glass, unless there was an abandonment to the Government under section 23 of the act of June 10, 1890. The decision in the Bache case was referred to by

the Supreme Court in the case of Lawder v. Stone (supra), and was held not to be in conflict with the decision in that case. The Lawder case held that, where a portion of a cargo of pineapples had become rotten and had been practically destroyed, and though in the semblance of merchandise, had become entirely valueless, so that nothing remained for abandonment, the case was one of nonimportation and not of damage, and a deduction of duties should be made on account of such merchandise. The Bache case was distinguished from the Lawder case on the ground that the broken glass possessed some value for remanufacture. At the time the Bache decision was made, paragraph 590 of the free list of the tariff act of 1890, under which the importation was made, included "glass, broken and old glass which can not be cut for use, and fit only to be remanufactured." Similar provisions occurred in paragraph 707 of the free list of the tariff act of 1883, and in paragraph 495 of the tariff act of 1894. While the provision for the free admission of broken glass of this kind is omitted from the present tariff act of 1897, paragraph 112 of this act, which, among other things, provides for a duty of 45 per cent on all glass not specially provided for in said act, has been held broad enough to include within its scope broken glass which possesses some commercial value. In re Certain Glass Works, G. A. 4138 (T. D. 19311).

This change in the tariff act in the particular mentioned plainly constitutes no reason for placing this importation upon a different dutiable basis from that passed on in the Bache case.

We find as a matter of fact that the broken glass in question at the time of its importation possessed some commercial value, being fit for remanufacture. The case as presented by the record is therefore one of damage and not of shortage or nonimportation. The protest is overruled and the collector's decision is affirmed.

(T. D. 25478—G. A. 5742.)

German-silver bars and sheets.

1. German-silver bars and sheets are dutiable under paragraph 193, act of July 24, 1897, at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, as articles composed of metal wholly or partly manufactured.

2. The provisions of paragraph 174 apply only to German silver in an unmanufactured state, such as pigs and ingots.-Boker v. United States (97 Fed. Rep., 205) distinguished; Dana v. United States (116 Fed. Rep., 933) and Wilkins v. United States (84 Fed. Rep., 152) cited and followed.

United States General Appraisers, New York, July 14, 1904. In the matter of protest 27194 h of Dingelstedt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and DE VRIES, General Appraisers). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question consists of bars and sheets of German silver. Duty was assessed thereon