formal reliquidation, and the strictly clerical task of computing the gallonage. He had no decision to make.

No appeal having been taken to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, it seems clear to us that the decision of the Customs Court became final as to dutiable quantity 60 days after its decision was reported in Abstract 52,288, supra, and the case was not open in August 1948 for demands or requests for further allowances by reason of the passage of Public Law 612, June 8, 1948.

It is pointed out that on that date several of the 60 days allowed for an appeal of the decision in Abstract 52,288 still remained. We do not think that effects rights in any particular. What appellant might have done during those remaining days we do not undertake to say, the fact being that it did nothing.

The decision of the trial court in this case is a comprehensive one, numerous decisions being ably reviewed. We are in harmony with it and it is affirmed.

JACKSON, J., retired, was recalled to participate in this case in place of JOHNSON, J., absent on account of illness.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS

DISMISSED

JUNE 20, 1952

S. S. Kresge Co. v. United States (No. 4736).-Floor coverings. Appeal from Abstract 56297.

JULY 10, 1952

United States v. National Tube Co. (No. 4742).-Steel pipe. Appeal from Reappraisement Decision 8107.

DECEMBER 8, 1952

United States v. Eastern Distilled Spirits Co. (No. 4752).-Reliquidation-
Quantity of alcoholic beverages-Public Law 612, etc. Appeal from C. D.
1433.
United States v. Walco Bead Co., Inc. (No. 4764).—Christmas tree ornaments.
Appeal from C. D. 1445.

FEBRUARY 11, 1953

United States v. The Jasebra Co. (No. 4766).—Internal revenue tax (breakage, Public Law 612). Appeal from C. D. 1476.

MARCH 6, 1953

United States v. Kung Chen Fur Corp. (No. 4767).-Plates of undressed kidskins. Appeal from C. D. 1480.

235055-58- -16

209

INDEX-DIGEST, VOLUME 40

Page

Abrasive sludge.

So-called abrasive sludge, described as an unwanted byproduct
resulting from the treatment of bauxite to produce an abrasive, is free
of duty, as a metallic mineral substance, under paragraph 1664.
United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons (1930) -

Administrative practice. (See Wool in the grease.)
Affidavits as evidence. (See Reappraisement.)

Alcoholic liquors.

Held that it is necessary to look to and consider provisions in both
sections 514 and 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in deciding the issue upon
the facts presented; that two general classes of reliquidation are
provided, the first class being under section 514, named in section 2 of
Public Law 612, where the collector himself decides that an original
liquidation by him was erroneous, and the second class, being under sec-
tion 515 (not named in Public Law 612) where the reliquidation is
made upon the mandate of courts, the collector having no further
decision to make; that the reliquidation in the instant case was of the
second class; that the decision and judgment of the Customs Court
of April 23, 1948, became final and conclusive upon all parties 60
days after their promulgation; and that the Customs Court did not
err in sustaining the collector's refusal to reliquidate as requested.
Schenley Distilleries, Inc. v. United States (1930) --

Alterations. (See Reappraisement.)

Alloys.

Merchandise, invoiced and entered as "Abrasive Sludge," was
classified by the collector as "Ferrosilicon, containing 8 per centum
or more of silicon and less than 30 per centum" pursuant to paragraph
302 (i), as modified, and assessed with duty at the rate of 1 cent per
pound on the silicon content. It appearing that commercial designa-
tion of the term "alloys" is different from the common meaning of the
term, held that the importation is free of duty as "Metallic mineral
substances in a crude state ***" under paragraph 1664, as claimed
by importer. United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons (1930) –

American goods returned.

Various parts of the yacht "Keewatin," imported from Newfound-
land, were of American origin and used in the construction of the
yacht together with other articles produced in Newfoundland. Held
that the collector was correct in using the actual total value of the
yacht, which was equal to the sum of the appraised value of the goods
of American origin and the appraised value of the goods of foreign
origin to determine the rate of duty to be assessed, although using only
the value of the goods of foreign origin to determine the amount of
duty. Donald G. Parrot v. United States (1930)... – .

The 30 per centum ad valorem rate was properly applied to that
portion of the boat which was of foreign origin, allowing free entry to
that portion of identifiable American goods returned. Ib.

The term "valued" in paragraph 370, as amended, cannot be taken
to mean anything other than the actual total value of the yacht as an
entity. Ib.

The final appraised value of the yacht is clearly the sum of the ap-
praised value of the goods of American origin and foreign origin,
respectively. Ib.

14

202

14

8

Appeal and error.

Where the trial court had the witnesses before it and had listened
to their testimony, that court is in a better position to form an opinion
of the reliability of the testimony than can an appellate tribunal and,
therefore, the findings of a trial court will not be set aside without
good and sufficient reason. Robinson-Wagner Co., Inc. v. United
States (1930) -

Where petitioner had possession of two invoices the first of which
quoted a higher home consumption price than the second, and where
the foreign value would have been appraised at the higher value if not
withheld, it was error for trial court to grant remission of duties.
United States v. W. J. Westerfield (1930).

The trial court erred in holding that mere carelessness of importing
company's secretary and bookkeeper was sufficient to absolve it from
intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts in the case or to deceive
the appraiser as to the true value of the merchandise imported from
China. United States v. Pacific Coast Feather Company (1930)-
Appraisement.

Where the appraiser, instead of finding the cost of the coverings
or bags containing the merchandise as required by statute (section
402), found a value for the coverings, although the consular invoice
shows that the cost of the bags was included in the commercial invoice
price, obviously presents a question relative to the correctness of the
appraisement which properly should have been passed upon by the
Customs Court or, in the first instance, by a single judge thereof.
United States v. James H. Rhodes & Co. (1930)--

The collector's failure to give importer notice that a valuation
higher than one-tenth of 1 cent per pound, the rate at which the im-
ported pumice stone was entered, had been adopted on the basis of the
appraisement, had the effect of voiding the appraisement and rendered
the collector's liquidation invalid. Ib.

It is not incumbent upon the Government to prove that the appraised
value was proper, until or unless importer had shown the appraise-
ment to be erroneous and established a different value. Kenneth
Kittleson v. United States (1930)__

It is definitely fixed by the Tariff Act of 1930 and judicial interpreta-
tions of the provisions thereof that the burden upon a party attacking
the appraised value is twofold, and the validity of such action enjoys
a presumption of correctness until such burden is met. Ib.

While it appears that O. P. A. regulations in effect at the time of
the instant transaction imposed a value of 141⁄2 cents per pound as
compared with 172 cents per pound, such determination by a recog-
nized agency of Government cannot be accepted as the type of testi-
mony required in cases of this character to show, (1) the incorrectness
of the value found upon appraisement, and (2) a different value in
place thereof. Kenneth Kittleson v. United States (1930) --

Assignments of error.

Assignments of error should clearly, by express words or fair im-
plication, point out the particular errors upon which appellant intends
to rely to secure reversal. United States v. Fisher Scientific Com-
pany (1930)-

Bicycle chains.

Certain bicycle chains, composed of steel and not used for purposes
other than on bicycles, are parts of bicycles under the provisions of
paragraph 329. Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (1930)_
Boats. (See American goods returned.)

Burden of proof.

It is too well settled to require citation that importer is under a
two fold burden in matters of classification in that he must not only
prove the Government's classification to be erroneous but must also
prove that his own classification is the proper one. Davies, Turner &
Co. v. United States (1930)---

Page

80

115

141

1

85

85

164

193

193