Menzel & Co. v. United States

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

Menzel & Co. v. United States

135 F. 918, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5208

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1904

DocketNos. 3,636, 3,637, & 3,638

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 F. 918 (Menzel & Co. 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

Menzel & Co. v. United States, 135 F. 918, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5208 (circtsdny 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

The merchandise in question consists of caviar, the roe of the sturgeon. It was assessed for duty by the collector of customs under paragraph 258 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], as “fish, in tin packages.” The importers protested against said classification and assessment, and claimed the merchandise to be properly dutiable, under the provisions of section 6 of said act (30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693]), as a nonenumerated manufactured article. The board of general appraisers overruled the protest of the importers, holding the merchandise to be dutiable, either directly or by similitude, as fish, under said paragraph 258 and section 7, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693].

I do not agree with the board of appraisers on the proposition that this caviar is fish, but think, under the similitude clause, that, since it is so near fish in quality, texture, and the use to which it may be” applied (especially the use), that provision should control.

The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

The merchandise in question consists of caviar, the roe of the sturgeon. It was assessed for duty by the collector of customs under paragraph 258 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], as “fish, in tin packages.” The importers protested against said classification and assessment, and claimed the merchandise to be properly dutiable, under the provisions of section 6 of said act (30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693]), as a nonenumerated manufactured article. The board of general appraisers overruled the protest of the importers, holding the merchandise to be dutiable, either directly or by similitude, as fish, under said paragraph 258 and section 7, 30 Stat. 205 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693].

I do not agree with the board of appraisers on the proposition that this caviar is fish, but think, under the similitude clause, that, since it is so near fish in quality, texture, and the use to which it may be” applied (especially the use), that provision should control.

The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 F. 918, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menzel-co-v-united-states-circtsdny-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack