Vol. II, p. 440, par. 296.

Construction of paragraph. This paragraph separates still wines in bottles into three classes and fixes a specific rate of duty on each, as follows: (a) Bottles "containing each not more than one pint," which are to be assessed as full pints at $1.60 per twentyfour bottles, or at the rate of 6% cents per pint; (b) bottles "containing each not more than one quart and more than one pint," which are to be assessed as full quarts at $1.60 per dozen bottles; that is, at the same rate of 6% cents per pint; and (c) bottles containing "any excess beyond these quantities," which are to be assessed at the rate of $1.60 per dozen, plus five cents per pint or fractional pint on the excess over a quart con

tained in each bottle. U. S. v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compañia, (1908) 209 U. S. 337, 28 S. Ct. 532, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 821.

Leakage of vermuth. - Vermuth is not covered by this paragraph prescribing that no allowance of duty should be made for leakage of "wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits," as the context indicates that Congress regarded vermuth as an independent article from those enumerated in said provision. Wile v. U. S., (1909) 172 Fed. 164, affirmed (1910) 178 Fed. 269, 101 C. C. A. 574.

Leakage of wine. — In an importation of 3,660 gallons of wine there was a shortage of 12.17 gallons in excess of the normal leakage.

It was held that no allowance for this shortage was permissible, under this paragraph. Shaw v. U. S., (1907) 158 Fed. 648.

Measurement of excess. This paragraph provides that any excess over one pint or one quart found in bottles of vermuth "shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint or fractional part thereof." It has been held

that such duty should be assessed on each bottle containing such excess, rather than on the basis of the total excess per case or per importation. De Fremery v. U. S., (1909) 171 Fed. 677.

Sake. The Japanese beverage "sake" is properly classified under the similitude clause, as similar to still wine, in view of the uniform customs administrative construction under which, on a protest by an importer in 1894 against classification by similitude to

Vol. II, p. 440, par. 297.

"Bok ale" or barley brew base, which is an unfinished nonalcoholic beverage, but which is produced by processes and from materials similar to those employed in the manufacture

Vol. II, p. 441, par. 299.

Concentrated fruit juice is dutiable under this paragraph as fruit juice by similitude under section 7, because it resembles ordinary fruit juice (1) in material, from which it differs only in having had some of its water removed by evaporation, and (2) in use, being applied to the same purpose. U. S. v. Rich, (1910) 176 Fed. 732, 100 C. C. A. 278, affirming (1909) 172 Fed. 293. Medicated fruit juice. Fruit juice which has been concentrated and medicated but is

--

distilled liquor, sake was classified by similitude to still wine, which ruling has uniformly been followed, and has received at least a qualified approval by Congress in enacting such Tariff Act without modifying the provisions of the earlier act upon which such ruling was based. Komada v. U. S., (1910) 215 U. S. 392, 30 S. Ct. 136, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 249, affirming (C. C. A. 1908) 162 Fed. 465, which reversed (1906) 148 Fed. 125. Contra, Nishimiya . U. S., (C. C. A. 1905) 137 Fed. 396, affirming (1904) 131 Fed. 650. Leakage while in transit after arrival. Under this paragraph there can be no allowance made for leakage of wine while in transit to this country. Duty must be assessed on the quantity shipped from abroad. U. S. v. Shaw, (C. C. A. 1906) 144 Fed. 329, reversing (1905) 141 Fed. 469.

of beer, is dutiable by similitude at the same rate as beer, under paragraph 297. Wakem v. U. S., (1910) 180 Fed. 1021.

not used by itself as a medicine, but as an ingredient in the preparation of a medicine, was not dutiable as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 75 of the Tariff Act of Oct. 1, 1890, but was dutiable under paragraph 299 of the Act of 1897. Richard v. U. S., (1892) 147 Fed. 891.

See under this title,

Cherries in alcohol. vol. 2, p. 434, par. 263. Marasque water" or eau de marasque." See under this title, vol. 2, p. 504, sec. 6.

66

which is of animal origin, it is, like cotton yarn, of vegetable origin, and is composed almost wholly of cellulose. It is therefore dutiable by similitude, under paragraph 302, as cotton yarn, and not under paragraph 385 as silk yarn. Hardt Von Bernuth . U. S., (1906) 146 Fed. 61, 76 C. C. A. 638.

Ramie sliver is dutiable as cotton sliver by similitude, under paragraph 302. Vandergrift . U. S.. (C. C. A. 1909) 173 Fed. 609, affirming (1908) 164 Fed. 65.

machines, which is shown not to be within the class commercially known as "embroidery cottons." Loeb v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1906) 150 Fed. 327, reversing (1905) 143 Fed. 698.

of bleached threads, that these figures do not make the goods "bleached," within the meaning of the various provisions for bleached cotton cloth which are found in section 1, Schedule I.

Vol. II, p. 442, par. 305.

Cotton cloth with colored figures. — Under paragraphs 305-309, providing for "colored" cotton cloths, the character of the fabrics as colored is determined by the condition of the warp and filling threads alone; and cottons having colored figures, but an uncolored foundation, are not " colored," within the meaning of the Tariff Act, though the figures may cover the foundation fabric and have on the eye the effect of a colored fabric. U. S. v. Rusch, (1908) 160 Fed. 279, affirmed (C. C. A. 1909) 167 Fed. 523.

Construction of paragraph. — In Riggs v. U. S., (1904) 131 Fed. 568, it was held that the expression, same description or condition," as used in this paragraph has no reference to the condition concerning value prescribed in the provisos to paragraphs 306, 307, and that, when cotton cloth is of such character as to become liable to the additional duty prescribed in paragraph 313, such duty should be additional only to that provided in the main part of paragraph 306 or 307, and not to that prescribed in said provisos to those paragraphs, conditioned on the value of the fabric.

Dotted goods. This paragraph includes goods having dots produced by warp threads which on the back of the fabric hang loosely between the dots, and which add no strength to the cloth, but may be removed without leaving a visible vacancy. Gitterman v. U. S., (1907) 154 Fed. 169.

Vol. II, p. 446, par. 314.

Figured cotton cloth valued at over eleven. twelve, and twelve and a half cents per square yard is liable, in addition to the specific duty imposed by paragraph 313, to the ad valorem tax imposed by paragraphs 306, 307, upon similar plain cotton cloth above those values. U. S. v. Riggs, (1906) 203 U. S. 136, 27 S. Ct. 39, 51 U. S. (L. ed.) 127, reversing (1905) 136 Fed. 583, 69 C. C. A. 357.

"Threads.” — In paragraph 313, relating to "cotton cloth in which other than the ordinary warp and filling threads have been introduced in the process of weaving to form a figure," the term "threads" is used in a sense that includes the remnants of threads so introduced, which have been clipped off where they appear at intervals on the back of the fabric. R. B. Maclea Co. v. U. S., (1909) 167 Fed. 688.

See under this title, vol. 2, p. 470, par. 409.

and not as cotton trimmings, at sixty per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 339. Horstmann v. U. S., (1903) 121 Fed. 147.

Pile fabrics of flax. - Portieres, made from pile fabrics composed in chief value of flax, are not included in the second proviso in this paragraph. Ryer v. U. S., (1903) 126 Fed. 246.

Vol. II, p. 448, par. 318.

Specific designation. With respect to embroidered hosiery, the provision in paragraph 339, for "wearing apparel . . . embroidered in any manner by hand or machinery, composed wholly or in chief value of flax, cotton, or other vegetable fiber, and not elsewhere specially provided for,” is less specific

Vol. II, p. 448, par. 320.

Bindings. A narrow woven tape of cotton, used largely for covering the seams of underwear and waists, if a braid, within paragraph 339, placing a sixty per cent. duty on braids not otherwise provided for, is also a binding or tape, and therefore otherwise provided for by, and dutiable under, paragraph 320, placing a forty-five per cent. duty on bindings and tapes. Steinhardt v. U. S., (1903) 121 Fed. 442. See also Baruch v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1909) 172 Fed. 342, reversing (1907) 159 Fed. 294.

Labels of cotton and silk, cotton the chief component, are not to be excluded from the provision in this paragraph for labels com

Goods

Cotton-wool cloth-Act of 1890. composed in part of wool, but in chief value of cotton, were more specifically enumerated in Tariff Act Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1244, sec. 1, Schedule I, par. 355, 26 Stat. L. 593, as "manufactures of cotton" than in the provision in Schedule K, paragraph 392, 26 Stat. L. 596, for manufactures of every description in part of wool." Benoit v. U. S., (1892) 150 Fed. 687. Crocheted goods. So-called "crochet yokes," made by knitting or crocheting, and used for the yokes of women's vests, are not trimmings or lace within the meaning of paragraph 339. Loewenthal v. U. S., (1906) 147 Fed. 774.

Hemstitched lawns-Act of 1894. Hemstiched cotton lawns, made by subjecting cotton cloth to the process of turning over the edges, drawing certain threads, and other manipulation, but not appropriated by these

Vol. II, p. 450, par. 326.

posed of cotton," because not composed wholly of cotton. U. S. . Herzog, (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 622, reversing (1904) 135 Fed. 919.

Labels in the piece. In construing the provision in paragraph 320 for "labels, for garments or other articles, composed of cotton." it was held that labels are not to be excluded therefrom because in the piece and requiring to be cut apart before being used as labels. U. S. r. Herzog, (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 622, reversing (1904) 135 Fed. 919. Featherstitch braids.-See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 339.

Ribbons of silk and cotton. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 465, par. 391.

goods in the piece from which such articles are made. Wilson r. U. S.. (C. C. A. 1906) 146 Fed. 64, affirming (1905) 138 Fed. 1007; Dunham . U. S., (1906) 150 Fed. 562, 80 C. C. A. 364; contra Douglass v. U. S., (1901) 123 Fed. 993.

processes to any particular ultimate use, were held to have been advanced beyond the condition of "cotton cloth," and not to be dutiable as such under the "countable clauses" of Tariff Act Aug. 27, 1894, c. 349, sec. 1. Schedule I, paragraphs 252-257, but to be dutiable as 66 manufactures of cotton," under paragraph 264 of said act. Meyer v. U. S.. (1901) 124 Fed. 296.

"Manufactures of cotton.". The provision for "manufactures of cotton," in Tariff Act Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1244, sec. 1, Schedule I, par. 355, 30 Stat. L. 593, was held to include materials composed in chief value of cotton and in part of another substance. Benoit r. U. S., (1892) 150 Fed. 687.

Hat bands or hat trimmings. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 339.

Ruffled cotton curtains. - See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 339.

Vol. II, p. 451, par. 339.

Appliquéd mottoes. Certain so-called "Haussegen" or wall mottoes, consisting of pasteboard cards with mottoes sewn thereon, and with various pictures surrounded by wreaths, affixed thereto by some adhesive material, are dutiable under this paragraph 339, relating to appliquéd or embroidered articles, and not under paragraph 407, as manufactures in chief value of paper. Kaufmann v. U. S., (1904) 128 Fed. 468.

Articles stitched on edge to prevent raveling. The provision in paragraph 339 for "embroidery and articles embroidered in any manner," does not include articles stitched on the edge with needlework of the plainest description, which simply serves the necessary and useful purpose of preventing raveling. The fundamental idea of embroidery is that it is needlework done upon a previously completed fabric, as distinguished from tapestry or lace work, in which the design is a part of the original fabric. It is also essential that it should be ornamental, rather than merely useful. U. S. v. Waentig, (1909) 168 Fed. 570.

Braids of cotton and rubber. The provision in this paragraph for braids " wholly or in chief value of ... cotton, whether composed in part of india rubber or otherwise," applies only to braids in which cotton is the chief or only component. Braids in part of cotton and in chief value of rubber are dutiable under paragraph 449, as manufactures in chief value of india rubber. Horrax v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1909) 167 Fed. 526.

See also Calhoun v. U. S., (1901) 122 Fed. 894.

Braid sets. Collars and cuffs composed of braids sewn together and ornamented with cords and threads were held to be dutiable as "wearing apparel . . . in imitation of lace," under this paragraph. It is not necessary that articles coming within this provision should be imitation lace as known to the trade. U. S. v. Hesse, (C. C. A. 1907) 158 Fed. 407, reversing 154 Fed. 171.

Drawnwork. The provision for articles “embroidered,” in paragraph 339 has been held to include so-called "drawnwork goods, consisting of fabrics in which an openwork effect has been produced by drawing out certain of the threads and interjecting different and independent threads, and which have ornamental work and figures in various portions of the goods. Beach . Sharpe,

"inlaid linoleum," but as linoleum "figured or plain," under this paragraph. Hunter r. U. S., (1903) 121 Fed. 207, affirmed (1904) 127 Fed. 1022, 61 C. C. A. 270.

Plank linoleum, made by running upon the burlap foundation paste of two colors in stripes of equal widtn, a process differing from that employed in making linoleum, is, under paragraph 337, dutiable as "linoleum figured or plain," rather than as "inlaid linoleum." U. S. v. Scott, (1908) 164 Fed. 285.

(1907) 154 Fed. 543. Compare U. S. v. Simon, (1909) 169 Fed. 106, 95 C. C. A. 434.

Embroidered furs. - Fur garments, ready to wear, lined with silk and trimmed with embroidery, are "embroidered articles," though the fur itself has not been embroidered. Jaeckel v. U. S., (1910) 178 Fed. 260, 101 C. C. A. 620, affirming (1909) 172 Fed. 292.

Embroidered hosiery. The proviso in this paragraph, prescribing that no embroidered wearing apparel, etc., "shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any schedule upon any embroideries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed," is not restricted to the articles previously enumerated in the same paragraph, but extends to other portions of the act. Silk embroidered cotton hosiery is therefore dutiable at the rate applicable to silk embroideries, when such rate exceeds that provided for cotton hosiery in paragraph 318. Carter v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1906) 143 Fed. 256, affirming (1905) 137 Fed. 978.

66

Embroidered screens. Under the proviso in paragraph 339, prescribing that embroidered articles shall not pay a less rate of duty than is applicable to any embroideries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed," it was held that silk-embroidered screens, composed of wood and other materials, were liable to the rate provided for silk embroideries. The rule of "noscitur a sociis" does not operate to exclude such articles by reason of the enumeration in the same paragraph of laces, trimmings, etc. Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. U. S., (1907) 154 Fed. 736.

Featherstitch braids, so called, which are not produced by braiding, but by a process of weaving, but which are known commercially as braids, are within the provision for "braids" in this paragraph. Vom Baur r U. S., (1905) 141 Fed. 439.

Flax drawn work. In U. S. v. Ulmann, (C. C. A. 1905) 139 Fed. 3, affirming (1904) 131 Fed. 649, it was held that certain woven flax articles, in portions of which ornamental effects had been produced by drawing out certain of the threads and interjecting different, independent threads, producing openwork effects, are not "articles . . . in imitation of lace," as enumerated in paragraph 339. Hat bands or hat trimmings. - Certain