Batjer & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 60, 1921 CCPA LEXIS 20
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 23, 1921
DocketNo. 2054
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 11 Ct. Cust. 60 (Batjer & Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Batjer & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. 60, 1921 CCPA LEXIS 20 (ccpa 1921).

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Cordials imported at the port of New York in the years 1914,. 1915, 1916, and 1917, and in warehouse subsequent to the passage of' the revenue act of October 3, 1917, were classified by the collector of customs as cordials and spirituous beverages. On that classification the importation was subjected to the duty of $2.60 per gallon provided by paragraph 240 of the act of 1913, and also to the additional duty of $2.10 per gallon imposed by section 300 of the revenue-act of October 3, 1917, on distilled spirits withdrawn for beverage purposes. Section 240 of the act of 1913 and section 300 of the act of October 3, 1917, in so far as pertinent to the case, read as follows:

[61]*61Tariff Act of 1913.
Par. 240. Cordials, liqueurs, arrack, absinthe * * * and other spirituous beverages or bitters of all lands, containing spirits, and not specially provided for in this section, §2.60 per proof gallon.
Revenue Act of October 3, 1917.
Sec. 300. That on and after the passage of this act there shall be levied and collected on all distilled spirits in bond at that time or that have been or that may be then or thereafter produced in or imported into the United States, * *. * ,( * * * y withdrawn for beverage purposes or for use in the manufacture or production of any article used or intended for use as a beverage, a tax of §2.10) on each proof gallon, or wine gallon when below proof, * * * to be paid by the distiller ■or importer When withdrawn, and collected under the provisions of existing law.

The importers did not challenge the duty of $2.60 a gallon exacted under paragraph 240 of the act of 1913, but did object to the additional duty of $2.10 per gallon and claimed that the provisions of the revenue acts of September 8, 1916, and October 3, 1917, were not applicable to the importation.

On the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers it was stipulated by the parties that the cordials involved in the protests were in fact cordials which did not contain wine and which were not sold as wine.

The board held that the additional duty assessable on the cordials was not $2.10 per gallon, as provided in section 300 of the act of October 3, 1917, but $2.60 per gallon in accordance with the terms of section 309 of said act, and the protest was therefore overruled without approving the action of the collector.

The importers appealed and n.ow contend that the importation is subject neither to the additional duty exacted by the collector nor to the higher amount held by the board to be correct. In support of their contention importers argue, first, that there has been a long established legislative distinction between cordials and distilled spirits and that therefore the importation is not covered by section 300, which is limited to distilled spirits and. perfumes and does not include cordials; second, that section 309 of the act of October 3, 1917, provides for such cordials only as are sold as wine and that as the cordials under consideration are neither made from wine nor sold as wine, they are not subject to the additional duty levied by that section; third, that if the importation be the class of cordials contemplated by section 309 of the act of 1917, the additional tax which attaches is that imposed by section 402 of the revenue act of 1916, and not that prescribed either by section 300 of the act of 1917 or by paragraph 240 of the act of 1913.

For more than 76 years spirits distilled from grain and other materials and cordials have been differentiated by Congress and have been provided for in numerous tariff acts as separate and distinct entities. —(Sec. 8, par. 5, tariff act of 1842; sec. 2, tariff act of 1862; [62]*62sec. 2, par. 1, tariff act of 1864; sec. 21, tariff act of 1870; schedule H, tariff act of 1883; pars. 329 and 332, tariff act of 1890; pars. 237 and 240, tariff act of 1894; and pars. 289 and 292, tariff act of 1897.) In the absence of any manifest legislative intent to the contrary we-must conclude, and in fact the Government admits, that the distinction between cordials and distilled spirits still continues and that the latter designation does not include the former.—United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 467-461; T. D. 31506); Garrison, Wright & Co. v. United States (121 Fed., 149); Reiche v. Smythe, Collector (13 Wall., 162); Robertson v. Rosenthal (132 U. S., 460). From this it follows that the cordials under consideration are not classifiable as distilled spirits and that they were not subject to the additional duty of $2.10 a gallon imposed by section-300 of the war revenue act of 1917.

' The only provision of law imposing an additional tax on cordials-eo nomine is section 309 of the act of 1917, which, in so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

Sec. 309. That upon all still wines, including vermuth, and upon all champagne- and other sparkling wines, liqueurs, cordials, artificial or imitation -wines or compounds sold as wine, produced in or imported into the United States, and hereafter removed from the customhouse, place of manufacture, or from bonded premises for sale or consumption, there shall be levied and collected, in addition to the tax now imposed by law upon such articles, a tax equal to such tax, to be levied, collected,, and paid under the provisions of existing law.

The importers contend, however, first, that this provision lays an additional tax on such cordials only as are wine cordials or cordials sold as wine, and that as the cordials in controversy are neither wine cordials nor cordials sold 'as wine, section 309 can not be applied to the importation; second, that even if that section could be applied the additional tax which it charges to such goods must be regarded not as an import duty, but as an internal-revenue tax, and that,, therefore, section 402 of the revenue act of 1916 and not section 240-of the act of 1913 determines the .additional tax, if any there be, accruing to the Government.

Section 309 imposes a duty, first, on all wines whether still, spar-; kling, artificial or imitation, including vermuth, which, by the way, is-not a wine, but a cordial as defined by'lexicographers. — (Century. Dictionary and Cyclopedia); second, on liqueurs and cordials; and,; third, on compounds sold as wine. <>

Wine in the ordinary acceptation of the unmodified'term is .the-product of the fermented juice of the grape. By extension, however,, fermented and u-nfermented juices obtained from other fruits and plants and prepared in imitation of wine from grapes are also called' wine, but such wines are distinguished from true wine by prefixing the name of the fruit or plant from which the juice is expressed. — - [63]*63(See “wine,” Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia; Standard Dictionary.)

Liqueurs are perfumed or flavored spirits sweetened by the addition of sugar, although the designation is also applied it seems to a very high grade of sweetened or unsweetened spirits which, although not artificially perfumed or flavored, have a characteristic delicate-aroma of their own and a particularly agreeable taste. — (See-“Liqueur,” New International Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia. Britannica, 11th ed.) •

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Westco Liquor, Products Co. v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 120 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Julius Wile Sons & Co. v. United States
20 Cust. Ct. 88 (U.S. Customs Court, 1948)
Protest 909111-G/11059 of Sazerac Co.
15 Cust. Ct. 248 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)
DeFremery & Co. v. United States
138 F.2d 161 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1943)
Dreyfuss v. United States
10 Cust. Ct. 318 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
De Fremery v. United States
6 Cust. Ct. 167 (U.S. Customs Court, 1941)
Nichols Copper Co. v. United States
1 Cust. Ct. 87 (U.S. Customs Court, 1938)
United States v. John Aquino, Inc.
21 C.C.P.A. 26 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Faber, Coe & Gregg (Inc.) v. United States
19 C.C.P.A. 8 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Rosenbloom v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 63 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
Arden v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 42 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
Shaw & Co. v. United States
11 Ct. Cust. 226 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Ct. Cust. 60, 1921 CCPA LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batjer-co-v-united-states-ccpa-1921.