J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States

30 Cust. Ct. 122, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 18
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1953
DocketC. D. 1509
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 Cust. Ct. 122 (J. E. Bernard & Co. 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
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States, 30 Cust. Ct. 122, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 18 (cusc 1953).

Opinion

Johnson, Judge:

This action involves the classification of merchandise described upon the invoices as greasewood extract sludge, and as greasewood extract, crude, imported from Mexico. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as a nonenumerated manufactured article. The plaintiff claims that it is properly free of duty under the free-list paragraph 1686 as a natural resin, not specifically provided for, or, alternatively, that it is dutiable under paragraph 1558 as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article.

At the trial, Donald Buelow, research chemist of the William J. Stange Co., the ultimate consignee of the merchandise, testified that he majored in pharmaceutical chemistry and holds the degrees of bachelor of science, master of science, and doctor of philosophy. For the past 5 years, he has been working on the production of nordi-hydrogu aire tic acid, abbreviated to Ndga for easy reference. This Ndga is used as an antioxidant in the fat and oil industry for the purpose of preserving fats to prevent them from becoming rancid. The witness performed most of the development work as far as concerned the manufacture of the product on a commercial scale. The witness described Ndga as a material obtained from the resin in the surface of the leaves of the greasewood bush.

Lot No. 109, entry 01455, was admitted in evidence as exhibit 1, and lot No. 110, entry 01635, was admitted in evidence as exhibit 2 as samples of the material in question. These samples are small pieces of a dark brownish amorphous material.

The witness further testified that he went to Mexico for the purpose of showing the exporter, the Continental Mexican Rubber Co., how [124]*124to acquire the imported material from the leaves of the greasewood bush which grows wild in the desert region. The process of production of the imported material was described by the witness as follows:

The leaves are gathered by stripping same from’ the bush, known as larrea divaricata, and commonly called the greasewood or creosote bush. After having been taken to a central collecting place, the leaves are weighed and then dried by the sun’s rays. The surfaces of the leaves, as on the plant, have a slight sticky consistency and mat together when collected, because of that characteristic. The material composing this surface is the resin. When the leaves are dried, they are loaded into trucks or freight cars and brought to the company plant, where they are packed into a large tank. The tank is about 6 feet wide, 8 feet deep, and 30 feet long. An alkaline, aqueous solution is poured on top of them until they become completely immersed. After about 25 minutes’ soaking in such solution, the alkaline liquid will absorb the resin in solution. It is then drawn off into empty tanks, and a mineral acid is added, such as hydrochloric or sulphuric acid. This acid action precipitates the resin, causing it to fall to the bottom of the tank. The liquor is then drawn off and the precipitate is shoveled out of the tank and placed on a concrete surface, where it dries by the natural rays of the sun. When completely dried, it is broken up and partially ground, in order to get the material into drums and cut .down shipping costs. The material in exhibits 1 and 2 represents the article as it is taken from the drum:

The witness further testified that the object of the process was to obtain the resin present on the greasewood leaf so that it may be processed in order to obtain the desired product which is Ndga. This process of extracting the Ndga, which takes place in this country, consists of dissolving the resin by the use of nitropropane, and undissolved matter, such as leaves, sticks, stones, sand, and other impurities, is removed from the solution. The filtrate is transferred to a still where the solvent is removed by a distillation process. It then goes to a crystallizing kettle. After cooling, a crude crystalline material is precipitated from the solution. This crystalline material is purified by several recrystallizations from other organic solvents, and the final product is the so-called Ndga. A sample of the Ndga was admitted in evidence as illustrative exhibit A. It appears to be a pure white powder.

The witness further testified that he took samples of about a pound from lot 109, represented by exhibit 1, and analyzed it for Ndga content. The result of his anlaysis indicated the actual amount of Ndga that was isolated from these particular samples. The witness described his method of analysis and the results obtained in each barrel, which ranged from 6.08 per centum to 7.24 per centum of [125]*125Ndga. The analysis of lot 110, represented by exhibit 2, showed a Ndga content ranging from 4.18 per centuin to 8.21 per centum.

The witness was of the opinion that the material covered by exhibits 1 and 2 falls within the definition of resins, as contained on page 974 in the United States Dispensatory, 24th edition, published by J. P. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, reading as follows:

* * * naturally occurring resins * * * are mostly solid and brittle at ordinary temperatures, amorphous, fusing easily, and volatile only with decomposition. * * * They are largely composed of esters or ethers of organic acids with complex alcohols known as resinols; certain of the latter have reactions similar to the tannins and are designated resino-tannols. Some resins are largely acids or acid anhydrides.

The reason given for his conclusion that the material was a natural resin was that it is amorphous, and-a naturally occurring resin, solid and brittle at ordinary temperatures, such as shown by the exhibits, and volatile with decomposition when heated. The witness had studied a considerable number of resins, and the material in question, in his opinion, conforms to the true resin. The witness also was of the opinion that the definition of a resin as it appeared in Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1944, on page 2120, would include the article represented by exhibits 1 and 2, because it is amorphous, of vegetable origin, will soften when heated, and burn with a smoky flame, but is insoluble in water. On the basis of his training and experience, the witness expressed the opinion that exhibits 1 and 2 represented a natural resin.

The witness also pointed out that in the process of extracting the resin from the leaves, there was no chemical reaction changing the character of the resin. The resin is merely dissolved in the alkaline solution, and after the removal of the leaves, the alkaline solution is neutralized, thus leaving the resin. Such resin contains the same chemical properties as it did before being subjected to such processes and had not undergone any change whatsoever. They are resins just as they are obtained from the plant itself.

The witness also testified that the process of obtaining Ndga from resins, as published in the Analytical Chemistry, a publication of the American Chemical Society, pages 1393-1396, edition 21, 1949, was not a dependable method of obtaining Ndga from resins, and such method has not received any official recognition; that the method so described is not dependable because it measures some materials other than Ndga, being a photometric method of measurement.

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

Related

General Mills, Inc. v. United States
67 Cust. Ct. 66 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States
35 Cust. Ct. 13 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
George Beurhaus Co. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 269 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 243 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Cust. Ct. 122, 1953 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-e-bernard-co-v-united-states-cusc-1953.