Eckstein v. United States

140 F. 94, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4763
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 1905
DocketNo. 3,597
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 140 F. 94 (Eckstein v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eckstein v. United States, 140 F. 94, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4763 (circtsdny 1905).

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

Paragraph 192, Schedule C, § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897,_c. 11, 30 Stat. 167 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645], lays a duty on “zinc in blocks or pigs, one and one-half cents per pound; in sheets, two cents per pound,” and paragraph 193 on “articles or wares not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, lead, copper, nickel, pewter, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, aluminum or other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem.” This importation‘is of zinc in sheets, nickel-plated, which have been assessed under 193, against a protest that it should be under 192. Apparently, these sheets are composed in part of zinc and in part of nickel, and come within 193, and this is clearly so unless they are [95]*95specialty provided for as zinc in sheets by 192. Zinc is an element by itself, and by that name merely nothing else would seem to be intended. Here is not only zinc in sheets, but zinc and nickel in the same sheets, which are not covered by 192, but are carried by the combination into 193. In Langerman & Petty v. U. S. (C. C.) 75 Fed. 1, the coating seems to have been treated as an incident to, and not a component part of, the sheets; and in DeJonge v. Magone, 159 U. S. 562, 16 Sup. Ct. 119, 40 L. Ed. 260, the articles there in question appear to have been found to have always been of themselves paper, and not manufactures of paper. These cases, although much relied upon, do not appear to be controlling. In view of the whole, the opinion expressed in Victor v. U. S. (C. C.) 128 Fed. 472, is adhered to.

Decision affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. American Nickeloid Co.
50 C.C.P.A. 8 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1962)
American Nickeloid Co. v. United States
47 Cust. Ct. 160 (U.S. Customs Court, 1961)
Kroder Reubel Co. v. United States
42 Cust. Ct. 149 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Baker Ice Machine Co. v. United States
4 Cust. Ct. 22 (U.S. Customs Court, 1940)
United States v. Sutherland International Despatch
21 C.C.P.A. 264 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Hirsch v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 82 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
140 F. 94, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckstein-v-united-states-circtsdny-1905.