
    United States v. Cohen et al.
    (No. 2187).
    
    Cellophane in Sheets.
    Following United States v. Henle Wax Paper Mfg. Co. (11 Ct. Oust, Appls. 487; T. D. 39627), decided concurrently herewith, and Rolland Fréres (Inc.) v. United States (11 Ct. Oust. Appls. 321; T. D. 39141), cellophane in sheets is dutiable neither as artificial silk by similitude under paragraph 319, tariff act of 1913, nor as nonenumerated manufactures under paragraph 385, but by similitude as manufactures of gelatin under paragraph 34.
    United States Court of Customs Appeals,
    May 7, 1923.
    Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 44947.
    [Keversed.]
    
      William W. Hoppin, Assistant Attorney General (Samuel M. Richardson and Samuel Isenschmid, special attorneys, of counsel), for the United States.
    
      Broolcs & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks, jr., and Ernest F. A. Place of counsel) for appellees.
    [Oral argument March 21, 1923, by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Place.]
    Before Martin, Presiding Judge, and Smith, Barber, Bland, and Hatpield, Associate Judges.
    
      
       T. D. 39628.
    
   Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal raises the same question as that involved in the United States v. Henle Wax Paper Manufacturing Co., suit No. 2183, this day decided.

The importation is similar in quality, texture, and appearance to gelatin in sheets, and it is dutiable by similitude to manufactures of gelatin at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 34 of the tariff act of 1913.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.  