The Board of General Appraisers, has correctly found that the merchandise in question is flax noils. It was assessed for duty as tow of flax, under paragraph 326 of the-act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, §. 1, Schedule J, 30 Stat. 180 [U. S. Comp.. St. 1901, p. 1661]. It is claimed as dutiable as' “waste not specially provided for,” under paragraph 463, Schedule N, of said act 30 Stat. 194 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1679]. The uncontradicted testimony taken in this court is to the effect that the merchandise is not flax, tow, and is flax waste. The only question, then, is whether the article-is dutiable as flax tow. by similitude. Inasmuch as there is a specific enumeration covering waste, the similitude clause cannot be applied.. Arthur’s Executors v. Butterfield, 125 U. S. 70, 8 Sup. Ct. 714, 31 L. Ed. 643.

The decision of the Board of -General Appraisers is reversed.