Manufacture requires transformation into a new and different article; treated imported corks remained corks and failed drawback qualification.

Imported corks subjected to cleaning, steaming, branding, chemical treatment and drying did not become a new and different manufactured article. The statutory concept of manufacture requires transformation into an article with a distinctive name, character or use, not merely change, treatment, labor or manipulation. Because the corks remained corks and were only prepared for use in bottling beer, they did not qualify as articles manufactured in the United States from imported materials for drawback purposes. The drawback claim was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported corks, after special cleaning, steaming, branding, chemical treatment, and drying, became articles manufactured in the United States from imported materials so as to qualify for drawback under the statute.

Analysis: The statutory idea of manufacture requires more than change, treatment, labor, or manipulation. It requires transformation into a new and different article having a distinctive name, character, or use. The corks remained corks after the processes applied to them. The treatment prepared them for use in bottling beer, but did not convert them into a manufactured article within the meaning of the drawback provision.

Conclusion: The claim for drawback was not sustainable, and the decision was against the appellant.

---