
    Before the Second Division,
    January 14, 1942
    No. 46819.
    Protests 981907-G, etc., of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Los Angeles).
   Opinion by

Kincheloe, J

In view of the holding in Riley v. United States (8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 116, T. D. 37225), which was recently called to the court’s attention, wherein certain woven woolen spreads used to cover the legs and body in automobiles, on couches, or in carriages were held dutiable as woven blankets, the merchandise in question was held dutiable as manufactures of cotton, not specially provided for, at 40 percent under paragraph 923 as claimed.  