Lehn & Fink v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Lehn & Fink v. United States

147 F. 640, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMay 29, 1906

DocketNo. 3,910

StatusPublished

This text of 147 F. 640 (Lehn & Fink 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

Lehn & Fink v. United States, 147 F. 640, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903 (circtsdny 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

The merchandise in question consisted of certain Hexamethyientetramin, upon which duty was assessed at 55 cents per pound under paragraph 67 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 154 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1631]. The importers protested claiming that said merchandise was only dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 68 of said Act as a “medicinal preparation not containing alcohol or in the preparation of which alcohol is not used.”

The only evidence before the Board of General Appraisers was an affidavit, in the German language, from the foreign manufacturer. A translation of this affidavit was produced before the referee, in the Circuit Court, also the testimony of a witness. From the translation, it appears that the article does not contain alcohol, and that alcohol was not used in its preparation. I think the board must have misinterpreted or mistranslated this affidavit, upon which it based its findings of fact. The testimony of the witness also tended to confirm the facts set forth in the affidavit as translated in court.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

The merchandise in question consisted of certain Hexamethyientetramin, upon which duty was assessed at 55 cents per pound under paragraph 67 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 154 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1631]. The importers protested claiming that said merchandise was only dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent, ad valorem under paragraph 68 of said Act as a “medicinal preparation not containing alcohol or in the preparation of which alcohol is not used.”

The only evidence before the Board of General Appraisers was an affidavit, in the German language, from the foreign manufacturer. A translation of this affidavit was produced before the referee, in the Circuit Court, also the testimony of a witness. From the translation, it appears that the article does not contain alcohol, and that alcohol was not used in its preparation. I think the board must have misinterpreted or mistranslated this affidavit, upon which it based its findings of fact. The testimony of the witness also tended to confirm the facts set forth in the affidavit as translated in court.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. 640, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehn-fink-v-united-states-circtsdny-1906.