Judson Sheldon Corp. v. United States

13 Cust. Ct. 65, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 533
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 16, 1944
DocketC. D. 871
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 Cust. Ct. 65 (Judson Sheldon Corp. 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
Judson Sheldon Corp. v. United States, 13 Cust. Ct. 65, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 533 (cusc 1944).

Opinion

Cole, Judge:

Wilson & Co., Inc., meat packers of Chicago, Ill., imported in November 1941 from Sao Paulo, Brazil, a commodity invoiced as “Beef Liver Extract” which was entered at the port of New York. The merchandise was classified as a drug, advanced in value or condition, under paragraph 34 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 34), and was assessed with duty at 10 per centum ad valorem. The protest claims the product to'be a crude drug and therefore entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1201, par. 1669).

All facts essential to the collector’s classification are presumed to have been established, United States v. R. Hillier’s Son Co., Inc., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 103, T. D. 42762. The statutory definition of a drug, paragraphs 34 and 1669, supra, a substance “having therapeutic or medicinal properties and chiefly used for medicinal purposes,” is applicable to the merchandise now before us. Hence, the issue is limited to the question whether, within the purview of the paragraphs in question, the imported drug is in a crude state, as claimed, or has been processed to an advanced condition, as assessed.

The impeller's general manager, David Klein, a qualified biochem[66]*66ist, was the sole witness. Prior to bis present position, he was associated with Wilson Laboratories, formerly a separate organization affiliated with Wilson & Co., Inc., but now an integral part of the corporate entity. His experience ‘ therewith, which included “the development of medicinal products derived from glands of animals-that have therapeutic value” gives his testimony the probative value-with which it is accepted. Following employment as director of research, he assumed entire charge in 1926 of “production sales, development, and all of the activities connected with the manufacturing pharmaceutical business.” Part of his duties required the issuance of directions to the foreign exporter for preparing the imported commodity, and, after receipt of the merchandise, to determine by test if the product met specifications. From the appearance, odor,, and taste of the product in question, exhibit 1, he was able to identify it as the same as material which he has produced in large quantities for his employer. To obtain the imported commodity, beef livers are-ground for the purpose of obtaining the best liquid extract from the soluble portion; water is added and the material is subjected to heat “between 170 and 180 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes”; the boiling mass is then strained, which is largely a separating process, isolating the liquid from the coagulated portion; further washing with water of the solid or meat portion removes additional soluble quantity, which is combined with the original amount of water extract; this material,, approximately 2 per centum solids, contains the desired therapeutic properties inherent to beef liver; to render the merchandise suitable for shipment, it is “concentrated in a vacuum to a solids content of between 55 and 60 per cent,” and then placed in suitable-containers that are maintained throughout the entire period of shipment at a temperature of “about 40 degrees Fahrenheit”; the protein material and valuable vitamins associated with the insoluble or fat portion of the beef livers are retained in Brazil as food for both humans- and animals.

After the merchandise is received in the importer’s laboratory, it is subjected to a predigesting process, converting it into assimilable forms “so that the sick person, the invalid, the convalescent who would use that material would have no further work to do than just to take it and absorb it.” Following such treatment, the product is sent to a pharmaceutical establishment where it is combined with other ingredients into a preparation, prescribed by doctors, “for the treatment of anemia, malnutrition after convalescence and any condition that the physician considers require liver and iron therapy.”

The processing after importation is not set forth in detail because-such manipulation is immaterial for the purposes of the present case. We are concerned only with the operations in the country of exportation, whether the treatment there advanced the imported drug beyond [67]*67a crude state, tbe test being that the merchandise is “not advanced in value or condition by shredding, grinding, chipping, crushing, or any other process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture” (paragraph 1669, supra).

The Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to statutory authority, section 306 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1306) and the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (21 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 111) issued the following rules and regulations relating to importation of meats, all having a direct and important bearing upon the issue here: Amended part 94, chapter I, title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (exhibit 2), prescribe that “contagious and communicable disease of rinderpest or of foot-and-mouth disease” (sec. 94.1) exist in Brazil, and therefore the importation of “fresh, chilled, or frozen organs, glands, extracts, or secretions derived from domestic ruminants or swine” (sec. 94.3) originating in said country is prohibited, “except for pharmaceutical purposes,” and then only, part 95, regulation 17, sec. 95.17 (b) of said code (exhibit 3) “if accompanied by the certificate of a consular officer showing that in process of preparation the particular product was subjected to a temperature of not less than 156° F. (68.9° C.).” It is conceded that the foregoing regulations, possessing the force of law, apply to the imported product here.

The witness testified that such an undertaking could not be made with these beef livers because you cannot heat the whole livers to any such temperature with safety, and even if they were heated to that temperature they would have to come in under freezing conditions and the importation of frozen livers is wholly impractical because of the necessity to keep them, throughout the entire period of shipment, below freezing,, probably a temperature of 10° or 12° F. below freezing, in order to keep them in a sound condition, whereas this material (exhibit 1) can come in at a temperature of 40° F., that is, above freezing (p. 12). Further testimony revealed that procurement of satisfactory and adequate storage space presents a major difficulty in the shipment of Brazilian beef livers. Not only are the facilities required practically inaccessible but the space for the livers would be at least 15 times the space for the liver extract, because it takes 15 pounds of livers to make the extractives for 1 pound of this material. The hardships encountered in trying to ship whole livers would also be presented if importation of the chopped livers were attempted. To dry the livers would destroy certain of the valuable constituents required in the medicinal use of the finished product. Importation of the liquid extract, without concentration, is also highly objectionable. This would result in shipment of large amounts of cakes of ice to this country and the volume there would be even larger than the volume of the original livers.

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

Related

Organon, Inc. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 363 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
U. S. Vitamin Corp. v. United States
33 Cust. Ct. 269 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Geo. S. Bush & Co. v. United States
15 Cust. Ct. 83 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Cust. Ct. 65, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judson-sheldon-corp-v-united-states-cusc-1944.