1. Customs Duties — Classification—Similitude—“Sake”—“Still Wine.”

Sake is dutiable as still wine by similitude, being “similar” to that article in material and use within the meaning of the similitude clause in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (ü. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693), which prescribes the classification of un enumerated articles “similar * * in material, * * * use,” etc., to enumerated articles. The resemblance in material arises from the fact that the predominant substance in both articles is alcohol, and that there is a substantial similarity in their alcoholic strength; the percentage of alcohol being about 18 in sake and from 11 to 16 in still wine. The resemblance in use arises from the fact that both articles are drunk for purposes of exhilaration, and are capable of producing intoxication.

2. Same — “Similar.”

In Tariff Act July 24. 1897, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, ’ p. 1693) relating to articles “similar” to other articles, the term quoted is used in the sense of nearly corresponding, resembling in many respects, somewhat like, or having a general resemblance.

TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Customs Duties, § 148.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6515-6510.]

3. Same — Similitude—Single Resemblance — Either—Or.

Tariff Act July 24, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693), relating to articles “similar” to other articles “either in material, quality, texture, or the use,” does not require that similitude should exist in all four of the respects specified. One of these resemblances will suffice.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Customs Duties, § 148.]

4. Same — Degree of Resemblance — “Similarity.”

The similarity required by the similitude clause in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693), is a real or substantial similarity.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Customs Duties, S 148.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, p. 6516.]

5. Same — Nature of Resemblance — Original Materials.

In applying the similitude clause in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693), relative to articles similar to other articles in “material,” difference in the original materials from which the articles compared Is not controlling. The law concerns itself only with the condition of the articles at the time of importation.

6. Same--Similitude — Question of Fact.

The question whether an article is “similar” to another witliin the meaning of the similitude clause in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 7, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693), is one of fact.

7. Same — Findings by Board of General Appraisers — Conclusiveness.

Findings by the Board of General Appraisers as to the fact of similitude will not be disturbed on appeal to the courts, unless clearly contrary to the evidence, or further evidence of a material character is presented.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Customs Duties, $ 205.]

8. Same — Statutes—Dong Acquiescence by Importers.

Where there is a conflict in the evidence as to the character of an imported article, much weight should be given to the fact that there ha* been an earlier ruling by tlie Board of General Appraisers which has long been acquiesced in by importers of that article.