ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

books of licenses must be verified in the same manner as those of the local inspectors, when any transactions have taken place during the month.

In this connection, the Department would suggest that, as but one license has been issued by the supervising inspector of the second district during the last four years, all such transactions might be left to the local inspectors, and the books of licenses in possession of the supervising inspector be returned to the Department. This would exempt that officer entirely from the provisions of the circular referred to. In regard to the objection to both local inspectors going to the custom-house with the license-books, that is a matter optional with themselves whether one or both shall go, so long as the intention of the circular is complied with, namely, a verification by the chief officers of customs of the serial numbers of licenses issued during each month. Very respectfully,

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

SUPERVISING INSPECTOR SECOND DISTRICT, Boston, Mass.

(4729.)

Allowance for damage-Goods having been forwarded under immediatetransportation bond.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 23, 1880.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, transmitting the appraiser's estimate of damage on certain wine imported into your port under immediate-transportation bond (No. 3548) from New York, consigned to Cavaroc & Sons.

The importation being made under the immediate-transportation act, without appraisement at New York, the damage in question, which, under Department's ruling of July 12, 1875 (Synopsis 2330), occurred on the voyage of importation, may be allowed in accordance with the estimate of the appraiser.

The inclosure of your letter is returned.

Very respectfully,

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Chicago, Ill.

(4730.)

Tuning-forks as musical instruments.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 24, 1880.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, reporting further on the appeal (8648 ƒ) of Messrs. C. Bruno & Son from your assessment of duty at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem on certain tuning-forks imported by them, per "Graf Bismark," April 7, 1880.

The appraiser reports that as tuning-forks formed part of the goods embraced in the suit of Foote vs. Arthur, which suit was decided adversely to the Government and formed the basis of the Department's decision of March 13, 1880 (Synopsis 4453), the tuning-forks should be classified as subject to duty at the rate of 30 per cent. ad valorem, as "musical instruments."

In a letter addressed to Messrs. Hartley & Coleman, under date of March 25, 1880 (as per inclosed 'copy), the Department stated that although the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the suit of Foote vs. Arthur "involved a return of duties on pitch-pipes and tuning-forks, the definition given by the court to the term musical instruments does not, in the opinion of this Department, fairly cover these articles," and you will observe that pitch-pipes and tuning-forks are not included among the articles specified in the published decision (Synopsis 4453). Your assessment of duty at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem on the tuning-forks embraced in the appeal (8648 f) of Messrs. C. Bruno & Son is hereby affirmed.

Very respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »