Monticelli Bros. v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 21, 1917 WL 20062, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 47
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 11, 1917
DocketNo. 1741
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 8 Ct. Cust. 21 (Monticelli Bros. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monticelli Bros. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. 21, 1917 WL 20062, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 47 (ccpa 1917).

Opinion

Barber, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Paragraphs 17 and 45 of the act of 1913, respectively, read as follows:

17. Chemical and medicinal compounds, combinations and all similar articles dutiable under this section, except soap, whether specially provided for or not, put up in individual packages of two and one-half pounds or less gross weight (except samples without commercial value) shall be dutiable at a rate not less than 20 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That chemicals, drugs, medicinal and similar substances, whether dutiable or free, imported in capsules, pills, tablets, lozenges, troches, ampoules, jubes, or similar forms, shall be dutiable at not less than 25 per centum ad valorem.
45. Oils, expressed: Alizarin assistant, sulphoricinoleic acid, and ricinoleic acid, and soaps containing castor oil, any of the foregoing in whatever form, and all other alizarin assistants and all soluble greases used in the processes of softening, dyeing, or finishing, not specially provided for in this section, 25 per centum ad valorem; castor oil, 12 cents per gallon; flaxseed and linseed oil, raw, boiled, or oxidized, 10 cents per gallon of 7£ pounds; poppy-seed oil, raw, boiled, or oxidized, rapeseed oil, and peanut oil, 6 cents per gallon; hempseed oil, 3 cents per gallon; almond oil, sweet, 5 cents per pound; sesame or sesamum seed or bean oil, 1 cent per pound; olive oil, not specially provided for in this section, 20 cents per gallon; olive oil, in bottles, jars, kegs, tins, or other packages having a capacity of less than five standard gallons each, 30 cents per gallon; all other expressed oils and all combinations of the same, not specially provided for in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.

The question here is whether sweet almond oil and castor oil, eo nomine referred to in paragraph 45, respectively, and separately imported in small bottles, each containing not more than 3 to 4 ounces, shall pay the specific duty therefor prescribed in said paragraph or shall pay what is assumed to be the higher rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 17. '

There are several importations in this case, each of which, as appears by the collector’s report, was advisorily returned by the appraiser as a medical preparation and was assessed at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 17. A majority of the Board of General Appraisers, one member thereof dissenting, over[23]*23ruled the protests which claimed assessment should be under the specific rates prescribed for the merchandise in paragraph 45.

At the hearing before the board the protestants called witnesses who produced four bottles containing oil, and identified the same as samples of the importations. These were marked as exhibits and received in evidence. The testimony of the importers’ witnesses established without dispute that these oils áre expressed. The fact is not controverted.

The Government called a witness, a customs examiner, who was also a practicing physician. Among other things he testified in substance that sweet almond oil was used as a nutrient and demulcent (soothing to irritated surfaces); that it wás supposed to possess therapeutic properties and was administered for that purpose, but what such properties were, other than nutrient, he could not say; that he had prescribed it, but he did not say for what purpose. There was no testimony tending to show the extent of its use in any of the above respects or its major use. There was no testimony as to the properties or use of castor oil.

The Century Dictionary; the United States Dispensatory; the Encyclopedia Britannica; Rogers’ Manual of Industrial Chemistry; A Manual of Dyeing, by Knecht and others; Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes, by Lewkowitsch; and the Oxford Dictionary are referred to, some by both .counsel and others by only one, as authorities setting forth the origin, properties, and uses of these oils. Therefrom we learn that almond oil is a fixed oil expressed from both sweet almonds and bitter almonds; that it may be used for the same purposes as olive oil; that it is a nutritious and pleasant food, is used internally in medicine, in the manufacture of high-class toilet soap, and in pharmaceutical practice. The expression “sweet almond oil,” or “fixed almond oil,” which apparently means the same thing, seems to be used to distinguish the oil to which the name is applied from another oil obtained from the'bitter almond, referred to as bitter almond oil. This we assume to be the article thus denominated in paragraph 46 of the tariff act, the only source of which appears to be the bitter almond. Some of these authorities state, and counsel agree, that castor oil is medicinally used as a mild but efficient purgative, but that its principal use is in various manufacturing operations and for lubricating purposes.

Three of the exhibits before us are labeled in a foreign tongue with words which indicate, as we understand, that the bottles so labeled contain pure oil of sweet almonds. The other exhibit is labeled as containing castor oil and upon the paper wrapper containing the bottle it is stated that the oil is prepared by a special process rendering it inodorous and tasteless and therefore susceptible of being administered to children and sensitive persons. Each bottle has a metallic cap over the cork securely fastening it.

[24]*24It is apparent that the first question here is whether these oils are "similar articles” to the chemical or medicinal compounds or combinations named in paragraph 17. This involves the primary inquiry as to what may be articles similar to compounds or combinations. The citation of authorities is unnecessary to- satisfy the mind that a compound or combination in the general understanding is necessarily something composed of more than one component material. The words themselves imply that requirement, because a compound or combination is a thing which results from the act of compounding or combining, and that obviously is the putting together or mixing in some manner of the materials requisite therefor.

We doubt if, in common understanding, it is applicable to a natural product. See United States v. Davies, Turner & Co. et al. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 196; T. D. 34325).

It has been held that a chemical compound is produced by a chemical union of constituent elements, or, as in the case of compounded drugs, is the result of a mixing together of component materials producing not a chemical union but a physical mixture in which each substance retains its own separate properties. United States v. Stubbs (91 Fed., 609); Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 285; T. D. 32035).

Assuming we have arrived at a correct understanding as to the ordinary meaning of the words "compounds” and "combinations,” the next step is to ascertain the effect of modifying them by the adjective "medicinal,” forwith "chemical” we are not here concerned. As to "medicinal,” its force obviously is to require that the compound or combination must possess healing or curative properties, and probably that it should be commonly so regarded and used.

To be similar to a medicinal compound or combination we think it is indispensable that an article must be a compound, combination, mixture, or preparation composed of more than one substance or material. These oils are not such. Each is a natural substance, namely, an oil expressed from a natural product.

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

Related

United States v. Shell Oil Co.
44 C.C.P.A. 54 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)
Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. v. United States
34 Cust. Ct. 182 (U.S. Customs Court, 1955)
R. J. Saunders Co. v. United States
29 Cust. Ct. 204 (U.S. Customs Court, 1952)
Protest 66165-K of Kanebo, Inc.
14 Cust. Ct. 230 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)
R. W. Greeff & Co. v. United States
10 Cust. Ct. 210 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
United States v. Wm. Cooper & Nephews, Inc.
22 C.C.P.A. 31 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)
United States v. Olivier Straw Goods Corp.
19 C.C.P.A. 71 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1931)
Birn v. Du Pont Cellophane Co.
17 C.C.P.A. 122 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1929)
United States v. Massin
16 Ct. Cust. 19 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)
Ungerer & Co. v. United States
15 Ct. Cust. 279 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.
14 Ct. Cust. 449 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1927)
Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States
9 Ct. Cust. 124 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ct. Cust. 21, 1917 WL 20062, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monticelli-bros-v-united-states-ccpa-1917.