New York, dated the 26th ultimo, in which he states that the case of The United States v. A. J. Hague & Co. (Suit No. 1294) was decided by the United States circuit court for that district on the 19th ultimo in favor of the Government.

The merchandise in this case consisted of "feather-stitched braids," classified by the collector as cotton trimmings, dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 373 of the act of October 1, 1890.

The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 355 of said act, on which protest the Board decided that the merchandise was dutiable at 35 cents per pound, or not less than 40 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 354, notwithstanding the fact that the importers had made no claim whatever under this latter paragraph.

In overruling the decision of the Board in this case, the court holds that the importers are bound by the claim of their protest, and can not avail themselves of the provisions of paragraph 354, having made no claim thereunder.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 7, 1896.

SIR Referring to Department letter to you of the 4th of June last, requiring an inspection of strayed or driven cattle upon their return to the United States, I have to state that said instructions are, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture, modified so far as to permit the return of all strayed cattle without inspection or quarantine, provided in each instance you shall satisfy yourself that the cattle have not been out of the United States for a period exceeding thirty days prior to such return as "strays," and that they were not driven across the boundary for grazing purposes.

Under no circumstances will cattle owned in the United States, which have been held for grazing in a foreign contiguous country, be admitted without a careful inspection by an officer of the Department of Agriculture.

The Department is advised that large numbers of such cattle have been admitted during the past year along the Mexican border without any inspection or quarantine, thereby endangering the health of the cattle of this country.

It is expected that the above instructions will be rigidly enforced, and in case of doubt or insufficient evidence as to whether animals coming across the line are "strays" or cattle which have been held abroad for grazing purposes, you are instructed to require the proper inspection, under the order of the Department of Agriculture of September 27, 1895, as contained in Synopsis 16491.

Respectfully, yours,
(8031 g.)

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,
Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Eagle Pass, Tex.

(16672.)

Seizure of imported goods for undervaluation under section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890.

[Circular No. 8.].

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 8, 1896.

To collectors and other officers of the customs :

Section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, provides that "if the appraised value of any article of imported merchandise shall exceed by more than ten per centum the value declared in the entry, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise, a further sum equal to two per centum of the total appraised value for each one per centum that such appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry; and the additional duties shall only apply to the particular article or articles in each invoice which are undervalued; and if such appraised value shall exceed the value declared in the entry more than forty per centum, such entry may be held to be presumptively fraudulent, and the collector of customs may seize such merchandise and proceed as in cases of forfeiture for violations of the customs laws; and in any legal proceedings which may result from such seizure the fact of such undervaluation shall be presumptive evidence of fraud, and the burden of proof shall be on the claimant to rebut the same, and forfeiture shall be adjudged unless he shall rebut said presumption of fraudulent intent by sufficient evidence."

Although the language of the above provision has been construed as permissive, rather than mandatory, the Department desires it to be understood that, in any case where an undervaluation of 40 per cent or more has been found of imported merchandise, seizure should be made at once under a presumption of fraud, unless the circumstances are such as to positively relieve the importer from any suspicion of fraudulent intention.

CHARLES S. HAMLIN,
Assistant Secretary.

(16673.)

Fee of 20 cents for copy of outward manifest, and fee of 20 cents for export certificate of domestic goods, abolished by section 22 of act of June 10, 1890.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 8, 1896.

SIR Referring to your letter of the 6th ultimo, in regard to the decision of the Board of General Appraisers at New York, of October 29, 1895 (G. A. 3277), to the effect that the fee of 20 cents for copy of outward manifest, and the fee of 20 cents for export certificate of domestic merchandise are abolished by section 22 of the act of June 10, 1890, I have to state that as no appeal has been taken from said decision under the provisions of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890, the decision of the Board will stand as a rule for the future guidance of officers of the customs.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 9, 1896.

Department circular No. 56, dated April 14, 1893, wherein white men married to natives, and residing within the Territory of Alaska, are denied the privilege of killing fur-bearing animals, is hereby modified in such manner as to confer the privileges specified in said circular upon white men who married natives, and engaged in otter hunting in said Territory, prior to March 2, 1893, in faith of previous rulings of the Department.

J. G. CARLISLE,

Secretary.

(16675.)

Drawback on clocks made in part from imported porcelain and onyx cases, porcelain and zinc dials, beveled glasses, or glasses made from imported window glass.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 11, 1896. SIR: On the exportation of clocks manufactured by the Ansonia Clock Company of New York City, in part from imported porcelain and onxy

cases, porcelain and zinc dials, beveled glasses, or glasses made from imported window glass, drawback will be allowed equal in amount to the duties paid on such imported materials used, less the legal deduction of 1 per cent.

The entry under which the clocks are to be inspected and laden must show the number of clocks of each kind or variety to be exported, and the kinds and dimensions of the imported cases, dials, and glasses used; and the manufacturer's declaration on the drawback entry must describe such parts or materials by reference to the manufacturer's catalogues, photographs, and sworn statements filed with the collector of customs at New York, and also as described in the invoices under which the same were imported.

In case the glasses are cut from imported window glass, the quantity used may be determined by adding to the weight of the exported glass, to cover wastage incurred in manufacture, the respective percentages shown in the manufacturer's sworn statements hereinbefore mentioned.

In all cases the manufacturer's declaration on the drawback entry must show, in addition to the usual averments, that the exported clocks were made from kinds of imported material and in form as set forth in said sworn statements.

These instructions shall supersede the instructions of September 29, 1892 (Synopsis No. 13281). * * *

Wood fiber strips, plaited into sheets, dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 460 of act of 1890.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 11, 1896.

SIR: I have to inform you that the Department is in receipt of a report from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 7th instant, in which he states that the appraisers' case, Zinn & Co. v. The United States (A. 1742), was tried in the United States circuit court for that district on the 20th ultimo.

The court affirms the decision of your Board in the following terms: "This merchandise apparently consists of thin and narrow strips of wood fiber, plaited into sheets of about 24 by 18 inches, and was assessed under paragraph 460 of the tariff act of 1890. The protest sets it forth as free under paragraph 711, 'Sparterre suitable for making or ornamenting hats.' It does not appear to come within the common definition of this word, which appears to include only such a manufacture of a kind of Spanish grass; and the evidence does not show that it has ever acquired that name in the trade and commerce of this country, but

rather that it has not, although it may have that name in Germany, from whence this importation came, and it does not show at all clearly that it is suitable for either making or ornamenting hats. The protest must, therefore, be overruled.

"Judgment affirmed."

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 11, 1896.

SIR: In reply to your letter of the 7th instant, you are informed that vermilion, in the manufacture of which no other than imported quicksilver has been used, will be entitled, on exportation, to a drawback of the duty paid on the quicksilver shown by official analysis to be contained in the exported vermilion, less the legal deduction of 1 per cent. Respectfully, yours, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, (850 h.) Assistant Secretary.

Mr. WILLIAM LOHEYDE, New York, N. Y.

(16678.)

Japanese panels, tapestries, portieres, and chair scarfs dutiable as manufactures of silk at 50 per cent ad valorem under the act of 1890.—A protest giving wrong entry number not invalid, the court holding that the collector could not have been misled by the mistake, the other particulars being correctly stated in the document.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 11, 1896. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a report from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 26th ultimo, in which he states that the case of A. A. Vantine & Co. v. The United States (Suit No. 1233) has been decided in the United States circuit court for that district adversely to the Government.

The merchandise in this case consisted of certain Japanese panels, tapestries, portieres, and chair scarfs classified as embroideries at 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 413 of the act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested that the goods were not embroideries, but were dutiable as manufactures of silk at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 414 of said act; but an error appears to have been made in their protest which gave the wrong entry number.