_ .'91

P'.Ill.DPlRAL

i

this country, "including. the value ot all cartons, cases, and coverings of. Ilny kind." ,Picture frames are fitted. to thepictnres for their protection in handling, and for holding 1;Jlem in place. They would seem to be incidents of the pictures to which they are. attached, and dutiable at the same rate, as a part of their value, and .also to fall within the description of a case "of any kind" forthem.jn said section 19.' In either case the rate .of duty would be the same. In U. S. v. Gunther, 71 Fed. 499, the frame was itself I;lJ1 object of an,cie.llt art, and was, in question on a claim. that it was one of a collection of antiquities of which the picture was another; and it would have been quite "unusual," within the exception of this section 19. That case does not seem .to be controlling here, where the frames are mel'ely such, and usual. Decision reversed.

.et aL' v. UNITED S'rA.TES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1899.)

tjo.

CUIlTQMll D,UTIJIl8--,CLASSIll'IOATION'"-BoTTLES ·FOR MINERAL WATEIlS.

."

Siphon bottles for mineral waters, having private llllmes, trade-marks. and directiOnS. etched Ol;-namentaUy:upon them, '!lot for the purpose of Identifying' the wares Of the importers, but for to persons who may want them 80 decorated for their own use,were dutiable, tinder paragrapllOO of the act of 1894·(28 Stat. 513), asornii.mented or decorated

This was an application by Koscherak Bros. for a review of the de-' cision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of certain siphon bottles for mineral waters, imported by them. Albert Comstock, for appeilarits.' '. Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty. WHEELER, District These siphon bottles for mineral waters appear to be decorated by having private nati'les, tTade"marks, etched ornamentally upon them. ·'.I;heY are to be without ornamented' or as provided for in paragmph 90 of the act of 1894 (28, Stat. 513) on account of the private Q8tul'e ofthe .ornamentation. They are not, however, the names, trademarklil,' ,or direlrtioijsotthe importers for identifying their wares,' but to pe imported tor sale to others who may want the bottles so decorated for their use. The decorations may limit the purchasers to but few, bllt this limitation does not change thechaI'acter of the importations which come within that' Decisio,l1 affirmed.

UNITED STATES V. J. ALLSTON NEWHALL & CO.

525

UNITED STATES v. J. ALLSTON NEWliALL & 00.
(Circuit Court, D. Massachnsetts.

No. 615.

January 7,1800.)

1.

CUSTOMS DUTIES-VALUATION OF FOREIGN COINS-BASIS-INTRIl'\SIC OR OHANGE VAI,UE.

Ex-

In reducing foreign standard coins to United States currency for the assessment of duties, the basis in all cases is the value of the pure metal in such coins, and not their exchange ,value. This long-established rule 'was not changed by the proviso to section 25 of the tariff act of 1894 as to reliquidations, where it appeared that the value of the foreign money specified in an invoice had varied at the time of the invoice more than 10 per cent. from that proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury for that quarter; and a collector is not authorlz2d, because the commlar certificate accompanying an invoice shows the current exchange value of the money of the iI\voice to be more than 10 per cent. greater or less than the proclaimed value for the quarter, to depart from such proclaimed value, and adopt, for the purpose of assessing the duty, the exchange value shown by the certificate. The action of a collector in declining to accept the proclaimed value of a foreign standard coin, and in, adopting anotber standard, thereby in· creasing the amount of duty on imported merchandise,does not relate tOB disputed appraisement, but to the "amount of duties"; and, under Customs Administrative Act. June 10, 1890, §§ 14, 15, is reviewable, on the protest of the importer, by the board of general appraisers and the circuit court.

S.

SAME-REVIEW OF AC'rfoN OF COLLECTOR.

This was a petition by the United States for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers sustaining the protest of J. Allston Newhall & Co. as to the assessment of duties by the collector of Boston on certain imported merchandise. Boyd B. Jones, for the UnhedStates. J. 1'. TUcker and Benj. N. Johnson, for respondents.

COL-rr, Circuit Judge. This is a petition f()r a review of the decision ()f the board of general appraisers upon a protest ()f the importers relating to the amount of duties growing out of the conversion to American money of the silver rupee, in the case of an invoice of 25 bales of tanned sheepskins imported into the port of Boston from Madras, India. In reducing, the appraised value of the merchandise to American money, the collector adopted the rate of $.285 per rupee, which was the exchange rate as certified in the consular certificate accompanying the invoice. At the date of the consul's certificate, the value of the rupee, for the purpose of liquidating duties, as ,estimated by the director of the mint and proclaimed by the secretary Of the The board of general appraisers reversed the treasury, was decision of the collector, and directed him to reliquidate the duties on the basis of the proclaimed value. The question presented is whether, under the law, in reducing foreign standard coin to United States currency, the value shall ,be that of the pure metal of such coin, as proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury, or shall be its exchange value.