The amount refunded, as herein mentioned, is included in the appropriations designated "Refunding excess of deposits for unascertained duties;" "collecting customs revenue," (interest on 277 97 .do 115 15 See Exhibit K 3 65 Error in liquidation 10 35......do 12 51 Personal effects, free.. 570 Error in liquidation, (short shipment). 231 65 Hemp used in equipment of vessel... 905 Error in liquidation.... 81 50 Necessary repairs to vessel 17 40 Personal effects, free. 100 80 Double payment of tonnage-tax.. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Secs. 2513 and 3013 Rev. Stat. Do. Sec. 3012) Rev. Stat., and act Mar. 3, 1875. Sec. 3012 Rev. Stat., and act Mar. 3, 1875. Do. Sec. 3013 Rev. Stat., and act Mar. 3, 1875. Do. Sec. 30124 Rev. Stat.. and act Mar. 3, 1875. Do. Sec. 30124 Rev. Stat., and act Mar. 3, 1875. Do. Do. Sec. 2513 and 3013 Rev. Stat. Sec. 3012 Rev. Stat. and act Mar. 3, 1875. Sec. 3012 Rev. Stat. and act Mar. 3, 1875. 137 60 Domestic productions, exported and Sec. 3012 Rev. Stat. and act Mar. 3, 1875. as follows, referred to on page 4 of the tables accompanying the Secretary's report, viz: judgments;) "refunding duties erroneously or illegally exacted;" marine-hospital establishment." Exhibit A. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 5, 1873. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, requesting instructions relative to the rate of duty to be exacted, under the Department's ruling of the 18th of December last, on a class of ribbons. composed in part of cotton and in part of silk, and claimed by the importers to be known to the trade as cotton edge or Boyeaux ribbons, and cord-edge or round-edge ribbous. I have carefully examined the evidence submitted on behalf of the importers, and forwarded by you to prove their claim, which comprises the certificates of nearly one hundred persons and firms in the dry-goods business, both importers and jobbers, at New York, Boston, and other large cities, all of which are to the effect that those goods are not known, bought, or sold in the trade as silk-ribbons, but by other desig. nations, and it seems thereby to be well established that dealers are fully aware of the fact that these goods are composed of silk and cotton when making purchases or sales thereof under such designations. It is presumed from the foregoing that this class of ribbons was known in the trade as aforesaid at the time the act of June 30, 1864, was passed; but upon this point no evidence is afforded, and no one has affirmed, to my knowledge, that any change in their commercial designation has occurred since that time. In rebuttal of this testimony on the part of the importers, no evidence whatever is offered beyond the statement of the appraiser that "so far as these ribbons have had or can have any commercial designation based on the materials of which they are composed, that commercial designation must be silk-ribbons," and the further statement that they have been heretofore classified in that department as silk-ribbons. Upon this point, therefore, the testimony offered by the importers must be accepted as conclusive. The instructions of the Department of the 18th of December last were that all ribbons which, at the time of the passage of the act of June 30, 1864, or at the date of importation, were known as silk-ribbons, and bought and sold as such in the trade, will be classified as silk-ribbons, and subjected to a duty of 60 per cent. ad valorem. To the same effect was the ruling of the Department of April 21, 1870, on the appeal (S021a) of Henry Barbey & Co., of New York, where the decision of the collector, charging 60 per cent. duty on certain Faille ribbons, was affirmed upon the ground that the goods were "universally known to the trade as silk-ribbons, and were bought and sold as a pure silk article of a superior quality," the fact that they contained a modicum of cotton being generally unknown. Upon the foregoing state of facts the Department holds that the class of ribbons forming the subject of your letter should be classified, not as silk-ribbons, but as manufactures of which silk is the component of chief value not otherwise provided for, and be subjected to duty at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem, under the last clause of section S of the act of June 30, 1864. You will therefore be governed accordingly. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 17, 1873. SIR: I inclose herewith a copy of a letter from Hon. George H. Williams, Attorney-General, dated the 13th instant, advising an acquiescence in the decision of the court in the case of Chapon vs. Smythe, recently tried in the United States circuit court at New York, before Judge Smalley and a jury, involving the proper rate of duty on silk and cotton-velvet ribbons, and have to say that the Department has carried out the recommendation of the Attorney-General in the premises. I have, therefore, to direct that from and after the receipt hereof you conform your practice thereto, by charging 50 per cent. ad valorem duty on all silk and cotton ribbons, whether velvet or otherwise, not commercially recognized as silk-ribbons. I am, very respectfully, WM. A. RICHARDSON, Secretary. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS, Various Ports. Exhibit B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 2, 1874. SIR: On the 27th ultimo the Department decided, on the appeal (2307b) of Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co., that certain silk and cotton bindings, which had been classified by you as silk trimmings, at a duty of 60 per cent. ad valorem, were only liable to duty at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem, under the concluding clause of the 8th section of the act of June 30, 1864. The same question is involved in the following-described appeals, (the goods being similar,) heretofore transmitted by you to the Department, and therefore you are authorized to adjust the entries covered thereby in accordance with such decision, and, if necessary, to forward certified statements for a refund to the importers of the excessive duties exacted. * I am, very respectfully, * * TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 31, 1874. SIR: Your communication of September 21, last, transmitting appli cation of Samuel Shipley, owner of a cargo of wheat and pease imported at your port for transportation to New York, and exportation thence to a foreign port, having been mislaid, has not received the immediate attention to which it was entitled. The Department sees no objection to the change of entry requested by the shipper, the application appearing to have been made in good faith, and the mistake of entry for consumption on the part of the agent having been without the knowledge of the owner. On such correction being made, with proper certificate of actual export at New York, you are authorized to prepare a certificate of refund of the duties paid, and forward the same to this Department. I am, very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Erie, Pa. CHAS. F. CONANT, Exhibit D. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 21, 1873. SIR: I inclose herewith, for your information, a copy of a communica tion from the Solicitor of the Treasury, dated the 18th instant, recommending that the Department acquiesce in the judgment for plaintiffs rendered by the United States circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, in the case of the Washington Mills Company vs. Thomas Russell, collector, &c., recently tried in said court, the question at issue being as to the rate of duty to be assessed on certain Australian wool imported by plaintiffs from London and Liverpool per Batavia and Parthia, in the months of January and February, 1871, and have to inform you that the Department has, by letter of this date, to the Solicitor, acquiesced in his views, and requested him to instruct the United States attorney at Boston accordingly. You will therefore prepare and forward to the Department certified statements for refund of the excess of duties exacted in this and all similar cases where the requirements of the law as regards protest and appeal and time of commencement of suit have been complied with. I am, very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, WM. A. RICHARDSON, Secretary. Exhibit E. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 1, 1875. SIR: Your letter of the 3d instant is received, reporting upon the appeal (1316 c) of Mr. E. M. Skidmore, from your decision assessing discriminating duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem on certain ivory imported by him per the Russia, from Liverpool, September 3, 1874. You also inclose affidavit of Mr. Skidmore, together with bill of lading and invoice. These papers clearly show that the ivory in question was originally shipped at Bombay, and destined for the port of New York. Such destination is definitely stated in the invoice and declaration before the United States consul at that port and certified by him. The affidavits of the appellant state that it was "ordered from Bombay to be shipped via Liverpool, and for account of Messrs. Green & Arnold of New York City, and not purchased in Liverpool, but in Bombay, and intended, at the time of purchase, to be sent direct to New York City, and was not offered, or intended to be offered, in the United Kingdom for sale;" and further," that there was no vessel bound direct to New York from Bombay, and that the goods could not be forwarded to New York that way." The transshipment at Liverpool being only an incident in the voyage of importation, the Department, in accordance with its ruling of October 21, 1871, (synopsis 940,) holds that the discriminating duty does not apply, and your decision is, therefore, hereby reversed. You will please forward to the Department the usual certified statement for refund of the duty collected. I am, very respectfully, B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary. |