eral order as unclaimed, and afterward entered by an assignee for benefit of creditors, they may be delivered to him, as the department does not recognize the foreign shipper as having any claim on the goods while in the custody of the collector, and the legal representative of the importer succeeds to all rights and interests for customs purposes in the property consigned to his assignor.

Treasury Decision, 1897.

DUTY UPON RE-IMPORTED DOMESTIC SPIRITS.

Spirits exported and subsequently reimported, withdrawn from custom house for consumption after August 28, 1894, are subject to a duty equal to the internal revenue tax existing at the time of such withdrawal, i. e., $1.10 per gallon.

Treasury Decision, September 29, 1894.

DUTIES PAID MUST BE RETURNED IF GOODS ARE FOR

FEITED.

The United States government has no right under existing laws to declare goods in its hands forfeited and at the same time collect the duties on them of the importer in addition. The government is presumed to get the benefit of the duties in the price received on the sale of them, so that there is no presumptive loss of duties. If the importers have paid the duties and the goods are afterward declared forfeited and sold, the money paid must be returned.

U. S. Circuit Court Decision, 1898.

LIABILITY OF IMPORTER TO WHOLESALE DEALER'S SPECIAL TAX.

A distinct and separate special tax stamp is required to be taken out by a liquor dealer at every place at which he completes sales by deliveries of liquors, without having made prior constructive deliveries thereof to his customers at his regular place of business for which he holds the requisite stamp.

So an importer of liquors holding a special-tax stamp as a wholesale liquor dealer at his office in the city of A, must take out an additional stamp and pay additional tax as wholesale dealer for the city of B, if he sells and delivers packages of liquors through an agent at his place of storage in B, unless there is a prior constructive delivery to the purchasers at his office in A. Treasury Decision, April 19, 1898.

STAMPS FOR IMPORTED LIQUORS.—

Sec. 3334 a (11).—Imported liquor packages withdrawn from public store or warehouse, not having the required stamp, are forfeited. And whenever any package of im

ported distilled spirits of not less than five wine gallons is filled for shipment, sale or delivery on the premises of any wholesale liquor dealer, it must be stamped with special stamp.

STAMPS EFFACED.

Sec. 3334 a (12).-Every person emptying or causing to be emptied the contents of any package of imported liquors shall obliterate and destroy the stamp, marks and brands thereon.

IMPORTED SPIRIT STAMPS.

It is no offense against section 12 of the internal revenue act of March 1, 1879, to have in one's possession a canceled stamp, or stamp which has been used, or which purports to have been used, upon any cask or package of imported liquors, unless the same was removed from the cask or package by some person intentionally, without being defaced or destroyed at time of removal.

United States vs. Morris Spiegel, 116 W. S. 270.

IMPORTED CASKS.

Sec. 3334 a (13).—No person shall purchase or sell any cask or package with the imported liquor stamp, marks or brands thereon after the same has been used to contain imported liquors and has been emptied.

SHIPPING LIQUORS AND WINES UNDER FALSE NAME OR BRAND.

Sec. 3449.-Whenever any person ships, transports or removes any spirituous or fermented liquors and wines under any other than the proper name or brand known to the trade as designating the kind and quality of the contents of the casks or packages containing the same, or causes such act to be done, he shall forfeit said liquors or wines and casks or packages, and be subject to pay a fine of $500.

FOREIGN GOODS INFRINGING TRADE-MARK CANNOT BE IM

PORTED.

Section 11, act of July 24, 1897, provides: That no article of imported merchandise which shall copy or simulate the name or

trade-mark of any domestic manufacture or manufacturer, or which shall bear a name or mark which is calculated to induce the public to believe that the article is manufactured in the United States, shall be admitted to entry at any custom house of the United States.

Treasury Decision, August 3, 1897.

NO ALLOWANCE FOR BREAKAGE IN TRANSIT.

No allowance is made in customs duties for loss of liquors in transit by breakage and leakage of bottles or other like damage. General Appraiser's Decision, November 20, 1896.

NO DUTY ON BOTTLES AND JUGS.—

No duty need be paid on bottles or jugs containing spirits (except those of glass) imported under the tariff act of July, 1897. Treasury Decision, August, 1898.

REPACKING OF WINES UNDER PARAGRAPH 296 OF THE ACT OF 1897.

Paragraph 296 of the act of July 24, 1897, is as follows:

Wines, cordials, brandy and other spirituous liquors, including bitters of all kinds, and bay rum or bay water, imported in bottles or jugs, shall be packed in packages containing not less than one dozen bottles or jugs in each package, or duty shall be paid as if such package contained at least one dozen bottles or jugs, and in addition thereto duty shall be collected on the bottles or jugs at the rates which would be chargeable thereon if imported empty.

It appears that in the invoice of sixty-two cases of champagne, comprising the importation in question, six of the cases were found to contain each six bottles, known commercially as "magnums," of about two quarts, and two of the cases contained each four "magnums" of about two quarts, and that duty was assessed on the said eight cases as if they contained one dozen bottles each. It is understood that application is made for permission to repack for the purpose of having duty assessed on the packages as thus made up.

The assessment was correct. A repacking of the wine for the purpose of reducing the number of dutiable cases would be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 296, which imposes duty on the contents of each case as imported, and not on cases to be made after importation.

The delivery of the cases containing less than twelve bottles each to the importer, after payment of duties as aforesaid, is not prohibited by law, nor is any repacking required after such delivery.

Treasury Decision, February, 1898.

IMPORTERS OF CHAMPAGNE MUST PAY DUTY ON BOTTLES AND WINE BOTH.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in referring to paragraphs 88 and 243 of the act of August 28, 1894, decides as follows:

Conceding that the last quoted paragraph is not entirely free from ambiguity, and that when Congress therein provided for a duty of "eight dollars per dozen on champagne in bottles," the phrase might, without violence to its language, be interpreted either as including or as excluding the bottles, any such ambiguity seems entirely relieved by the language of the next succeeding paragraph, 244, in the same act. Congress therein imposes a * * * in bottles * * duty upon "still wines * per case of one dozen bottles * * * containing each not more than one quart," and adds the proviso, " but no separate or additional duty shall be assessed on the bottles." Undoubtedly, therefore, Congress assumed that unless it thus expressly exempted the bottles, its imposition of a duty on wines in bottles per case of one dozen bottles would leave the bottles subject to the provision for duty on filled bottles contained in paragraph 88 of the same act. When, therefore, in the preceding section, Congress, in substantially similar language, lays a duty of $8 per dozen on champagne and other sparkling wines in bottles without exempting the bottles, it is a fair conclusion that it had no intention to exempt them from the operation of paragraph 88.

BOVRIL WINE-DUTIABLE AS A MEDICINAL PROPRIETARY PREPARATION, ALCOHOLIC, AT THE RATE OF 50 CENTS PER POUND, UNDER PARAGRAPH 74 OF ACT OF 1890.The so-called appraisers' case, the United States vs. W. M. Shoemaker (A. 1897), was decided in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York on December 9, 1897, in favor of the government.

The merchandise in suit consisted of so-called "Bovril" wine in bottles, which was classified for duty as a "medicinal proprietary preparation, alcoholic, at 50 cents per pound," under paragraph 74 of the act of October 1, 1890. The importer protested, claiming the Bovril wine to be dutiable at $1.60 per dozen bottles under paragraph 336 of said act.

The testimony in this case showed that the Bovril wine under consideration contained absolute alcohol by volume 17.90 and by weight 14.35; that it consisted of port wine, with extracts of beef and malt added thereto.

On the trial of this case, testimony was introduced on behalf of the government showing that "still wines," as understood commercially, do not include such compounds as the Bovril wines in question; also that tonics were medicinal, and that the action of

such a compound as Bovril wine was not the same as that of still wines, even when the latter were used medicinally.

The court finds that with the percentage of alcohol shown to have been contained in this Bovril wine it was properly classifiable as an alcoholic compound, following Mackie vs. Erhardt (77 Fed. Rep., 610); furthermore that the term "still wines" does not include such special preparations as that under consideration. The classification under paragraph 74 as a proprietary preparation containing alcohol is therefore sustained.

WHISKY FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT.—

The department cannot permit the withdrawal from custom bonded warehouse of whisky free of duty, but such withdrawal can be made from internal revenue bonded warehouse free of tax. Treasury Decision, March 10, 1898.