Russman v. United States
This text of 107 F. 266 (Russman 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.
Opinion
The merchandise in question is a dentifrice. Congress prior to 1897 had always included dentifrices in the same paragraph with the term “toilet preparations.” In the act' of 1897 it used the term “toilet preparations” as a class to cover the various other articles, such as dentifrices, which had been specifically enumerated in.prior tariff acts. The merchandise herein was assessed for duty, under paragraph 2 of said act, as a “toilet preparation in which alcohol is used,” at 60 cents a pound and 45 per cent, ad valorem; and the importer protested, claiming that it was dutiable at 55 cents per pound, as a “medicinal preparation in which alcohol is used,” under the provisions of paragraph 67 of said act. While the evidence is insufficient to show that this is in fact a medicinal preparation, it abundantly supports the finding of the board that it is a toilet preparation; and their decision affirming the classification of the collector of customs is therefore affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 F. 266, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russman-v-united-states-circtsdny-1900.