Britt v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 118, 1916 WL 21525, 1916 CCPA LEXIS 50
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 12, 1916
DocketNo. 1670
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 Ct. Cust. 118 (Britt 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
Britt v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. 118, 1916 WL 21525, 1916 CCPA LEXIS 50 (ccpa 1916).

Opinion

Martin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The merchandise in this case consists of Loeflund’s food maltose in tins and Loeflund’s malt soup stock in bottles, the individual packages containing less than 2⅜ pounds each. The importations were made under the tariff act of 1913.

The collector classified the articles as articles similar to medicinal compounds under the provisions of paragraph 17 for “medicinal compounds, combinations, and all similar articles dutiable under this section, except soap, whether specially provided for or not, put up in individual packages of two and one-half pounds or less gross weight,” and held that they were subject to a minimum duty of 20 per cent ad valorem as prescribed by that paragraph. Duty was assessed accordingly.

The importers protested against the assessment, claiming that the articles were dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385 as nonenumerated manufactured articles.

The protest was submitted upon testimony to. the Board of General Appraisers and was overruled. The importers now appeal.

The following paragraphs of the act of 1913 are here copied for convenient reference.

5. Alkalies, alkaloids, and all chemical and medicinal compounds, preparations, mixtures and salts, and combinations thereof not specially provided for in this section, ,15 per centum ad valorem.
17. Chemical and medicinal compounds, combinations and all similar articles dutiable under this section, except soap, whether specially provided for or not, put up in individual packages of two and one-half pounds or less gross weight (except samples without commercial value) shall be dutiable at a rate not less than 20 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That chemicals, drugs, medicinal and similar substances, whether dutiable or free, imported in capsules, pills, tablets, lozenges, troches, ampoules, jubes, or similar forms, shall be dutiable at not less than 25 per centum ad valorem.
385. That there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the importation of all raw or unmanufactured articles not enumerated or provided for in this section, a duty of 10 per centum ad valorem, and on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for in this section, a duty of 15 per centum ad valorem.

'It may be noted tbat tbe foregoing paragraphs do not relate to medicinal preparations wbicb contain alcohol. Preparations containing alcohol are provided for by a different paragraph, which is not here copied, since the present merchandise concededly contains none.

It will be observed that paragraph 5, supra, imposes a duty of 15 per cent ad valorem upon all medicinal compounds, preparations, and combinations thereof, not specially provided for in the act, without express reference to the style or size of their individual packages, whereas paragraph 17, supra, provides that a minimum duty of 20 per cent ad valorem shall be imposed upon medicinal compounds and [120]*120combinations, and also upon “all similar articles,” if dutiable under tbe act, wh.eth.er specially provided for or not, when put up in individual packages of 2⅝ pounds or less, gross weight. This minimum rate of duty is advanced by the paragraph to 25 per cent ad valorem upon "medicinal and similar substances” if imported in capsules, pills, tablets, lozenges, troches, ampoules, jubes, or similar forms whether the merchandise thus packed be dutiable or free under the act when imported in other packages.

The present issue is whether the articles now in question are within the classification of articles "similar” to medicinal compounds or combinations. If they are such they would concededly be liable to the minimum rate of 20 per cent ad valorem, as prescribed by paragraph 17 and as assessed by the collector.

The "malt soup stock” in question is a proprietary article produced in the dietetic-product laboratory of Ed. Loefiund & Co., Stuttgart, according to the formula of Prof. Dr. Keller, of Berlin. It is said that the formula is to be found in the book of Dr. Kopluk, who is "one of the most noted children’s specialists in the United States, and that the book is a standard work in all medical colleges.” The article is an unfermented malt product containing 57 per cent of maltose, to which are added 12 per cent of dextrin and a certain percentage of potassium carbonate. According to the directions on the bottle 3⅜ ounces of the stock are to be dissolved in a pint of warm water, and this is to be mixed with a pint of milk containing 3 ounces of wheat flour properly strained. The mixture, is to be boiled, and in the case of young and weak children may be further diluted with water. The stock is said to be "indicated” for use in cases of infantile marasmus. In such cases it is said that " the acid intoxication which exists in the gut of these marantic infants is neutralized by this food. The increased ammonia in the urine of these infants is an index of this form of gut poisoning. This ammonia diminishes or disappears from the urine on the administration of these dextrinized gruels.” It is recommended that after children increase in weight by taking this food for two or three months they be gradually weaned from it and accustomed to simple milk modifications and other articles of diet. The potassium carbonate which is contained in the stock has the effect of converting milk from an acid to an alkaline reaction.

The second article above named is in the form of a powder. It is labeled "Loeflund’s food maltose, malt sugar consisting of dextrine maltose,” and is prepared in the same laboratories which produce the former article. The label recommends the article for infants who are in need of easily digestible nourishment, and states that it increases weight and for this reason may be found useful for invalids or convalescents, and that it is "indicated” in enfeebled states the [121]*121result of malnutrition. In special cases physicians may direct varying proportions of the food, maltose, milk, and water. It consists chemically of dextrin and maltose, 60 : 40 parts, and contains no potassium carbonate.

There is a slight conflict between the statements of the importers concerning the characteristics of the articles in question and those made by the manufacturer upon the labels and wrapper of the articles. The facts above stated, however, are those which seem to be established upon the entire testimony when considered together.

It therefore appears that the articles in question are designed as remedies in cases of sickness, and are to be used under the direction of physicians. They are not commonly known as food articles, nor are they to be consumed separately or directly like ordinary articles of food or drink, nor are maltose and dextrin when taken alone known as articles of food. The present compounds are designed to be mixed in small quantities with certain kinds of food, which are prepared for persons, especially infants, who are suffering from certain forms of disease, and in such cases they tend to eliminate certain poisons from the system, thus aiding the digestive processes and at the same time furnishing nourishment to the patient.

Upon the foregoing facts we are inclined to the view that these articles, while not themselves strictly medicinal compounds or combinations, are nevertheless articles which are “similar” thereto..

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

Related

Alltransport, Inc. v. United States
37 Cust. Ct. 112 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Scharf Bros. v. United States
25 C.C.P.A. 32 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1937)
United States v. Franklin
19 C.C.P.A. 65 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Smith & Son Manufacturing Co. v. United States
15 Ct. Cust. 277 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
Monticelli Bros. v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 21 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ct. Cust. 118, 1916 WL 21525, 1916 CCPA LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-united-states-ccpa-1916.