The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-22
PRESERVED
PlNEAPPLES
Treasury Decision in Regard to
Their Custom House
Classification.

| Hawaiians who are engaged in selling
| canned pineapples will note with inter
| est the following Treasury decision in
petition with theirs:
classification of preserved pineapples
shall be based on the reports of analyses
! by Government chemists, and where it
| is shown by such reports that sugar has
been added in the process of canning or
preserving, duty shall be assessed there
! on at 1 cent per pound and 35 per cent
ad valorem as fruits preserved in sugar
not specially provided for, under the
first clause of paragraph 263 act of 1897,
and not at % per cent ad valorem as
'pineapples preserved in their own
juice" under said paragraph.
Treasury Department, July 26, 1901
Sir: The Department is In receipt of
your letter dated the 10th ultimo to-
gether with the communication of the
appraiser at your port, reporting upon
the letter of the United States appraiser
at San Francisco, Cal, and the accom-
panying communication of Messrs. s. l..
Jones & Co., of that port, in the matter
of the classification of pineapples pre-
served in sugar.
1t is alleged that pineapples preserved
in sugar are being classified at your
port as ''pineapples preserved in their
own juice" and assessed for duty at %
per cent ad valorem under the final
clause of paragraph 263 of the tariff act
of July "a, 1897, while it appears that at
the port of San Francisco in every case
where it is shown by the report of the
analytical chemist that sugar has been
added in the process of canning or pre-
serving pineapples, the same are return
ed by the appraiser as pineapples pre-
served in sugar, dutiable at l cent per
pound and s. per cent ad valorem under
the provision in said paragraph for
fruits preserved in sugar"
The appraiser at your port, upon whose
advisory returns your classifications of
similar goods are predicated, states that
he had numerous tests made to ascer-
tain, if possible, the amount of cane SUI
gar added to the fruit" that this action
proved futile, as it seemed the pineapple
contained fairly large percentage of
cane sugar in its body, and the chemist
found It difficult, If not impossible, to
separate a small percentage of added su-
gar, If such be present." that, for the
information of his office, he caused other
pineapples to be grated and an equal
weight of sugar added. and that 1.-The
chemist at once reported fraction I'M
der so per cent as being cane sugar,
showing the possibility of detecting added
sugar
The appraiser also states that In his
advisory returns of preserved pineapples.
he has been governed by the decision
of the Board of United States General
Appraisers tunpublished), dated March T.
1901.
In the decision of the Board of Cen
eral Appraisers above referred to it was
held that certain preserved pineapples in
tins were dutiable at % per cent ad
valorem as pineapples preserved in their
own juice, under the last clause of said
paragraph. That decision was predicat-
ed on chemical analysis made by the
Government chemist of samples of the
goods, which showed that the amount of
cane sugar contained therein varied from
1.52 per cent Cat the lowest) to about
1874 per cent Cat the highesD, and upon
the evidence adduced in that case, show
ing that ordinary pineapples naturally
contain between II and L per cent Of
cane sugar" and that Singapore pine
apples similar to those than under con-
sideration by the Board probably con-
of pineapples.'' The Board was, there
fore, of opinion that the fruit in that
case was preserved in its own juice only
and that no cane or other sugar had
been ''extrinsically added from other
sources"
The foregoing decision is the same in
principle as the ruling of the Board In re
Rosenbaum Brothers ct. d. 12725, also
in re DelafieId ct. D. 1850. In the former
case the assessment of the merchandise
by the collector of customs at IS per
cent ad yalorem as fruits preserved in
sugar. under paragraph S03 Of the act of
1890, was based on chemical analysis
showing the presence of IS per cent of
saccharine matter in the fruit, but the
Board, in sustaining the claim of the i'm
porters, remarked that "the sugar beet
contains, on an average, over Ii per cent
of sugar; ripe pineapple is still richer