In re Appeal of Fujiyama

3 D. Haw. 522
CourtDistrict Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedApril 6, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 3 D. Haw. 522 (In re Appeal of Fujiyama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Appeal of Fujiyama, 3 D. Haw. 522 (D. Haw. 1910).

Opinion

Dole, J.

In this case the importer protested against the classification of the collector of customs for the port of Honolulu, District of Hawaii. The board of general appraisers afiirmed the decision of the collector of customs, from which decision the importer appealed to this court.

Eorty-five casks for white miso were classified at the custom house at Honolulu as sauce, under paragraph 241 of the tariff act of 1897, dutiable at the rate of forty per cent ad valorem. The ground of the protest of the importer was that miso should be classified as a non-enumerated manufactured article, under section 6 of the tariff act and dutiable only at the rate of twenty per cent ad valorem. The general appraisers at New York, after taking evidence and hearing counsel, ruled as follows:

“ Boiled beans are the principal if not the only substantial component article. If it were imported in tins, j ars, bottles or similar packages it would appear to fall exactly within the provision in the first part of said paragraph (241) for 'beans * * * prepared or preserved.’ The miso in question is imported in casks, but it is nevertheless adequately described in the following subdivision of the paragraph as 'vegetables, prepared or preserved,’ if not as 'sauce.’ The assessment appears to be correct, and the protests are overruled, the collector’s decision being afiirmed in each case.”'

[524]*524The court took considerable testimony on both sides of the question. The witness for the importer was Yamakami, who showed a familiar knowledge of the production of miso, having been, by his own account, a manufacturer of the article for eight years in Japan and having made it once in this Territory, lie showed, as far as the court could judge, an intimate knowledge of the process and some understanding of the chemical changes which are a part of it. His examination was exhaustive and from it it appears that white miso is made from a certain kind of Japanese bean, known as daizu, and rice, and that the process is in brief as follows: Rice is first taken, washed and steeped in cold water over night; the water is then drawn off and the rice is steamed and then poured out onto a mat and spread out and seed of malt, or rice yeast known as koji, mixed with it; it is then left in a warm place for about three days undergoing a-process of fermentation due to the koji and the temperature. During this time the rice becomes very white, then gradually turns to a greenish color, in which condition “it feels smoky and dusty.” AVhile this is going on the daizu beans are washed and boiled or steamed, usually for about twelve hours, then when they are sufficiently boiled, the rice is taken out of the hot room, about twenty per cent of salt added with a little water, then the beans are slightly crushed or mashed enough to break them, and mixed with the fermented rice. The proportion of salt used varies according to the market; if the product is for the Japanese market fifteen per cent instead of twenty per cent is used, but if for the Hawaiian market twenty per cent to keep it from spoiling. The mixed contents', after standing over night, are packed in small tubs for shipment. If for a distant market like Hawaii, it is not their ready for eating, but fermentation during the voyage brings it to the proper condition for eating at the1 end of the voyage. The effect of mixing the prepared, rice with the beans is the fermentation of the whole mass. After the fermentation it is ready for consumption and will keep for some time if in a cool place. It further appeared from his testimony that the fer[525]*525mentation softens the beans by dissolving the protein, and that it creates a taste or flavor, which is different from the bean taste or flavor; until that is accomplished it is not miso. This process does not entirely destroy the shape of the beans. It is necessary for the market that although the beans are crushed they shall not be so crushed as to destroy the original shape of all of them, because then the customers might think that the miso is not made out of whole beans. The bean taste cannot be distinguished in the manufactured article. Generally the proportions of the beans and rice is half and half by measurement; as to weight the rice is the heavier in the proportion of four to three and a half. The rice is the most costly ingredient or component part as compared with the beans. Miso is used for making soup; that is its common use among the Japanese, and it is generally taken at breakfast. The soup is made by taking a quantity of aniso in a bowl, mashing it with a wooden stick and adding hot water gradually until the proper stage is reached, and then it is boiled and drank rather than eaten. It is not eaten as a solid, nor as a condiment or as a relish, although it is sometimes, though rarely, used as a kind of salad with the addition of vinegar and pepper. 1st Tr. 28. There is no testimony, either in the record sent up from the general appraisers or in that taken before this court, which supports the conclusion of the collector of customs or the board of appraisers that miso is liable to duty as a sauce.

From the foregoing description of the method of producing miso, I am of the opinion that the process is a process of manufacture and that miso is a manufactured article. It is not preserved beans as counsel for the government contends. It is made from rice and beans, and rice is the component part of chief value, if we may ascertain the chief value from the value of the component parts at the time they were brought together. Although the statute (sec. 7, act of 1897) says, “The component material of chief value” means “that component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material of the article; and the value of each component material [526]*526shall be determined by the ascertained value of such material in its condition as found in the article,” it seems impracticable to ascertain such comparative value in this article after manufacture. The provision was probably intended to apply to such compounds as leave the component parts sufficiently accessible to examination for the basis of a judgment, such as combinations of different kinds of fibers in one manufacture. In this case the only ascertainable evidence of value is the value of the component parts just before the process of manufacture. The testimony, as has been shown, makes rice the component material of chief value; also as of greater weight than the beans. It would therefore appear that the contention of the government that beans are the important part of this production, is, at least, doubtful and it may be that the rice is of equal, if not greater, importance. The combination is a new article in which the flavor of the beans is lost and presumably that of the rice, although no direct evidence was given on that point. The addition of a fermenting yeast, although not always used, is generally used as a matter of convenience for accelerating the fermenting process. The introduction of salt appears to have two objects, its effect on the taste and flavor of the miso, and its preserving quality, which, according to the desire of the manufacturer for a greater or less lastingness of the product, is introduced in greater or less quantities according as he is manufacturing it for export or for home consumption.

Miso is a new and completed commercial article known and recognized in the trade by a specific and distinctive name other than the names of either of the materials of which it is made. It is put into a completed condition designed and adapted for a particular use.

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

Related

Saltonstall v. Wiebusch
156 U.S. 601 (Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 D. Haw. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeal-of-fujiyama-hid-1910.