Beadleston v. United States

104 F. 295, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 13, 1899·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

DROWN, District Judge.

The question is, are the bottle, the cork and the tin foil “materials” “used in the manufacture” of the “article” exported? The article is labeled “Imperial Beer Brewed Specially for Export- — Gold Label,” etc. Mere cases or coverings are not deemed a part of the “article exported,” and do not enter into its “manufacture.” Notwithstanding the evidence as to steaming, I think on full consideration that the “article” is essentially the beer, without reference to the bottle; that the bottle is not 'a material part of the identity of the beer or of its quality or marketable identity as beer, but only a convenient case for offering it to the public in a specific recognizable form, which serves no other essential use. As such I think the bottles, corks, etc., are not entitled to a drawback under the act of October 1, 1890. Wheeler v. U. S. (D. C.) 75 Fed. 654.

Judgment for defendant.

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

Beadleston v. United States, 104 F. 295, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1899).

104 F. 295 (Beadleston v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James v. United States
43 Cust. Ct. 133 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)