Under this section, the Department holds that, as the charges were omitted in the invoice and entry of the goods, the addition thereof subsequently, no matter how occurring, carried with it a further addition of 100 per cent. of the amount thereof.

Your decision in the premises is therefore affirmed.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 28, 1877.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, transmitting the appeal (4035 e) of Thaddeus Davids & Co. from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valorem on certain earthenware, imported per " Canada," February 6, 1876, which the appellants claim is dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem.

The appellants base their claim upon the statement that the merchandise is the brown earthenware and common stoneware mentioned in Schedule B of the Revised Statutes. The appraiser, however, states that the goods in question are not such common wares as are made from clay of inferior quality; that those made from clay of inferior quality are generally mixed without sifting, and are wares of a coarse character and of a dark-brown color; that the earthenware embraced in the present appeal is cream-colored and glazed, and has been partly dipped; that it was made from clay twice sifted, and superior in quality to that used in the manufacture of the common ware.

Upon this statement of facts, the Department is of opinion that the goods are properly subject to duty at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valo rem, under Schedule B of the Revised Statutes.

Your decision is therefore affirmed.

Respectfully,
By order:

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

H. F. FRENCH,

Assistant Secretary.

13

(3220.)

Sugars Transported in Bond-Marking of.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 28, 1877.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 23d instant, transmitting a communication from Agar & Delong, in which they request that the practice now in force of branding or marking sugars, transported in bond from your port to interior ports, may be discontinued, owing to the delay and expense incident thereto.

The question as to exempting certain descriptions of goods transported in bond, without appraisement, from such marking or branding has been heretofore considered by the Department, and it was determined (see Circular of October 23, 1876, copy herewith enclosed) that boxes of raisins or of tin plates, sacks of salt, and similar packages, not likely to be tampered with, need not be so marked or branded, and the regulations (article 688) were amended so as to require only so-called "case goods," such as dress silk, and similar goods, to be marked or branded.

In case, therefore, you are satisfied that the security of the revenue will not be endangered by so doing, you are hereby authorized to extend the provisions of such circular to sugars, whether in hogsheads, barrels, bags, or otherwise, which are transported in bond, after being duly entered for warehouse, and to consider article 641 of the Regulations as amended accordingly.

Respectfully,

By order: H. F. FRENCH,
Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New Orleans, La.

(3221.)

Tin Cans Exported with Benefit of Drawback and Reimported-Duty on.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1877.

SIR: The decision of this Department, dated September 16, 1876, (Synopsis 2972,) held that tin cans manufactured in the United States out of foreign material exported with benefit of drawback, (the cans being filled with domestic petroleum,) were upon reimportation liable to duty as of foreign manufacture.

The question has since been presented to the Department as to what

rate of duty should be charged under the law on the return of cans manufactured in the United States out of foreign tin, exported with benefit of drawback, filled with salmon of domestic origin and returned in the same condition.

Upon the salmon no duty accrues, provided the regulations of the Department governing the free entry of domestic productions exported and returned, are complied with. At some of the ports a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem has been charged on such cans, that being the rate due on tin cans of foreign manufacture, while at other ports duty has been charged under the act of February 8, 1875.

That act provides that cans or packages made of tin or other material containing fish of any kind, admitted free of duty under existing law or treaty, not exceeding one quart in contents, shall be subject to a duty of one cent and a half on each can or package, and when exceeding one quart shall be subject to an additional duty of one cent and a half for each additional quart or fractional part thereof.

It is the opinion of the Department that the act of February 8, 1875, is not applicable to the case, as the salmon contained in the cans is not exempted from duty by virtue of any law or treaty which permits the free entry of fish eo nomine, but is exempt under the free list of the Revised Statutes relating to articles of domestic growth, production, and manufacture of the United States exported and returned in the same condition as when exported.

The Department, therefore, holds that the cans are covered by decision 2972, and that the rate of duty to be charged thereon is that applicable to tin cans of foreign manufacture, viz., 35 per cent. ad valorem.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1877.

Chapter 6 of Title 34 of the Revised Statutes provides that goods subject to a duty ad valorem, shall be charged with duty upon the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the time and place of exportation in the principal markets of the country, from whence exported to the United States, with the addition of certain charges and

commissions therein specified; and it is made the duty of the appraisers to ascertain, estimate, and appraise such foreign market value, or wholesale price, by all reasonable ways and means in their power, and to report the same to the collector.

The practice has lately obtained in some of the manufacturing centres of Europe, on the part of manufacturers shipping all their goods on consignment to an agent in the United States, for sale, and some embarrassment has occurred in ascertaining the proper dutiable value of such goods from the fact that there were no actual sales upon which to base the market value.

The actual market value of imported goods is ordinarily to be estimated by ascertaining the price at which the owner holds his goods for sale; the price at which he freely offers them in the market; the price which he is willing to receive for them, if sold in the ordinary course of trade.

When goods are not sold for consumption in the markets of the country of production, but are sold for export to countries other than the United States, the value at which such sales are made may properly be taken into consideration by the appraisers in ascertaining the value of similar goods shipped to the United States.

Where no sales are made in the country of production, either for consumption or for export, the market value of similar goods of other manufacturers actually sold should be ascertained and be taken into account.

In cases where the manufacturer ships all his goods to the United States on consignment for sale, and the market value cannot be ascertained by the methods before indicated, it should be fixed by reference to the market value of the component materials of the goods at the time and place of manufacture, with the expense of manufacture and a fair manufacturer's profit added; and the appraised value in such cases cannot be less than the cost and profit so ascertained.

It is to be understood that evidence of the cost of production of imported goods is in all cases to be regarded as a proper subject for consideration in determining dutiable values, and appraisers are allowed, under the law, the greatest latitude in procuring information as to what is the true market value of imported merchandise; but it will be borne in mind that duties can in no case be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, nor can the appraisement be made at less than that value.

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS.

TO COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., June 2, 1877.

The following Decisions of the Department for the month of May, 1877, upon the construction to be given to Acts of Congress; relating to the Tariff, Navigation, and other subjects, are published herewith for the information and guidance of Officers of the Customs.

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

(3223.)

Hailing Ports of Vessels.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 2, 1877.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, asking if vessels may hail from ports of delivery in your district, and stating that all marine papers are issued from the port of Gloucester.

You are informed that the decisions of the Department, as a general rule, have required vessels to hail from the port at which their papers are issued, and this principle should be adhered to for the sake of uniformity. But unless there be good reasons why it should not be done, vessels may hail from a port of delivery established by law.

Very respectfully,
By order:

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Gloucester, Mass.

(3224.)

H. F. FRENCH,

Assistant Secretary.

Vessels on the North, Northeast, and Northwest Frontiers.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 2, 1877.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, submitting to the Department the application of Mr. D. Carter, agent of the Detroit and Cleveland line of steamers at your port, for permission to