General Aniline Works v. United States

U.S. Customs Court

General Aniline Works v. United States

9 Cust. Ct. 72, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 758

CourtUnited States Customs Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1942

DocketC. D. 665

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Cust. Ct. 72 (General Aniline Works v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

General Aniline Works v. United States, 9 Cust. Ct. 72, 1942 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 758 (cusc 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Walkbe, Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this suit against the United States is described on the invoice as Leuco Blue Green (Oxyethyloxy anthraquinone). It was classified by the collector under paragraph 28 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as a leuco-compound and assessed with duty at the compound rate of 45 per centum ad valorem and 7 cents per pound. , Protest was duly filed by the importer, claiming that the merchandise was properly classifiable as a coal-tar intermediate and dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 27 of the same act at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem and 7 cents per pound.

By timely amendment of the protest and stipulation of counsel the issue has been narrowed down to a competition between the provision in paragraph 28 (a), supra, for — -

Coal-tar products:

(a) All * * * leuco-compounds * * *.

and the following provisions of paragraph 27 (a) of the same act:

(1) * * * anthraquinone * * *.

* * * * * - * *

(3) all products, by whatever name known, which are similar to any of the products provided for in this paragraph or in paragraph 1651, and which are obtained, derived, or manufactured in whole or in part from any of the products provided for in this paragraph or in paragraph 1651;

$ * * $ ‡ * ‡

(5) all the foregoing products provided for in this paragraph, not * * * leuco-compounds * * * and not specially provided for in paragraph 28 or 1651 * * *.

It appears to he established by the evidence that the merchandise at bar is a derivative of anthraquinone otherwise entitled to classifica[74]*74tion under paragraph 27, supra, unless it be found that it is in fact a leuco-compound, in which case, by the provisions of paragraph 27 (a) (5) it is excluded from classification thereunder. The sole issue, therefore, is whether or not the importation is a leuco-compound.

At the outset it may he said that there is a basic and irreconcilable difference between the meaning of the term “leuco-compound” as contended for by the plaintiff, and the meaning of the same term as contended for by the defendant.

Plaintiff contends that a leuco-compound according to the common understanding—

—is a compound obtained by the reduction of a dyestuff which upon oxidation is converted back into the original dyestuff. [PI. brief, p. 24.]

“Reduction” means the addition of hydrogen, and in the case of leuco-compounds it appears that usually two atoms of hydrogen are added. In connection with anthraquinonoid leuco-compounds two of plaintiff’s witnesses added the conditions that the added hydrogen atoms must be attached to the oxygen of the carbonyl or keto groups, and that the oxidation of the leuco-compound to the dyestuff must take place readily in the air. Oxidation removes the added hydrogen.

The reason for the requirement of the reversibility of the action of dyestuff-to-leuco compound-to-dyestuff is found in the mechanics of •dyeing. Certain dyes which are insoluble in their dyestuff form can be reduced, by the addition of hydrogen, to the form of a leuco-com-pound, which either by itself or in connection with other agents will go into solution. The-material to be dyed is subjected to the solution, and upon oxidation the dyestuff is reproduced in the material.

On behalf of the defendant it appears to be conceded that plaintiff’s definition, including the added conditions, is correct for certain types of leuco-compounds, notably those of the vat types of dyes. It is, however, the Government’s contention that it is not necessary in ■every case first to have a dyestuff which is reduced to the leuco form, but that in the case of certain compounds, of which the importation at bar is claimed to be one, the leuco-compound may be formed in an 'intermediate stage during the manufacture of the dyestuff, and that upon oxidation of the leuco-compound thus obtained the dyestuff is formed. Defendant agrees that the action of leuco compound-to-dyestuff must be a reversible one, the only difference in this regard being that plaintiff contends that a'dyestuff must always exist before the leuco-compound is formed, while defendant maintains that the leuco-compound may exist before the dyestuff is formed.

The Government’s position is that the merchandise at bar is the leuco-compound of an acetate silk dye known as Celliton Fast Blue Green B. Apparently it agrees with those of plaintiff’s witnesses who stated that in anthraquinonoid leuco-compounds the added hydrogen atoms must be attached to the oxygen of the carbonyl or [75]*75keto groups, but denies that plaintiff bas shown that such is not the case in the merchandise at bar. It likewise denies that it is a requirement of all leuco-compounds that they oxidize readily in the air, contending that in the case of certain leuco-compounds, including the merchandise at bar, the application of chemical oxidizing agents is necessary to effect the conversion into the dyestuff.

Summarizing the case for the plaintiff, it is contended that the merchandise at bar is not a leuco-compound for the following reasons:

(1) That its chemical structure is not that of a true leuco-compound, i. e., that the merchandise at bar does not contain two more active hydrogen atoms than its corresponding dyestuff, Celliton Fast Blue Green B, and it is not reduced at the carbonyl or keto groups, i. e., the extra hydrogen atoms are not attached to the oxygen of the carbonyl or keto groups.

(2) That a comparison of the imported compound and a leuco-compound made by reducing Celliton Fast Blue Green B shows them to differ in spectra, solubility, and appearance.

(3) That anthraquinonoid leuco-compounds are easily oxidized by the oxygen of the air to their parent dyes while the imported compound requires the use of chemical agents for this purpose.

(4) That under the common meaning of the term a leuco-compound can only be obtained by reduction of a dyestuff.

We will treat each of these points in order as given above.

Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 offered at the trial consist of samples of the imported merchandise, the first representing a sample used in analyses and tests by one of plaintiff’s witnesses, Russell I. Baker, and the others by two of defendant’s witnesses, Herbert C. Ekweiler and Frederic H. Adams. All of the witnesses called, three on behalf of the plaintiff, and four on behalf of the defendant, were chemists, and all were evidently well qualified in their field.

As the result of analyses and tests made by plaintiff’s witness Baker he gave his opinion that the merchandise at bar is a dihydro of 1:4 dioxyethylamino 5:8 dioxyanthraquinone, and gave the following structural and empirical formulae of that product, which in memorandum form was admitted in evidence as illustrative exhibit A:

[76]

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