Sonoma Wine & Brandy Co. v. United States

S.D. New York

Sonoma Wine & Brandy Co. v. United States

123 F. 999, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 19, 1900

DocketNo. 3,049

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 999 (Sonoma Wine & Brandy Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sonoma Wine & Brandy Co. v. United States, 123 F. 999, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (S.D.N.Y. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise in question, invoiced as “finings,” is a “solution of gelatin containing a considerable proportion of sulphurous acid or sulphite as a preservative.” It was assessed for duty as “gelatin, * * * valued at not above ten cents per pound,” under paragraph 23, Schedule a, § 1, c. 11, of the [1000]*1000act of July 24,1897, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628), and claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem as a manufacture of gelatin, not specially provided for, under paragraph 450, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678), or at 20 per cent, ad valorem as a manufactured article not specially provided for, under section 6, c. 11, of said act (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693).

The contention of the importer that this article is not gelatin is insufficiently supported by the evidence that it is not so known in a common commercial sense, and that it had been dissolved in boiling water. It is not a manufacture of gelatin in any sense, certainly not in the sense in which that term is used in paragraph 450, and it is specially provided for under paragraph 23 of said act, and was properly assessed at 2j4 cents per pound.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge

(orally). The merchandise in question, invoiced as “finings,” is a “solution of gelatin containing a considerable proportion of sulphurous acid or sulphite as a preservative.” It was assessed for duty as “gelatin, * * * valued at not above ten cents per pound,” under paragraph 23, Schedule a, § 1, c. 11, of the [1000]*1000act of July 24,1897, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628), and claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem as a manufacture of gelatin, not specially provided for, under paragraph 450, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678), or at 20 per cent, ad valorem as a manufactured article not specially provided for, under section 6, c. 11, of said act (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693).

The contention of the importer that this article is not gelatin is insufficiently supported by the evidence that it is not so known in a common commercial sense, and that it had been dissolved in boiling water. It is not a manufacture of gelatin in any sense, certainly not in the sense in which that term is used in paragraph 450, and it is specially provided for under paragraph 23 of said act, and was properly assessed at 2j4 cents per pound.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 999, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonoma-wine-brandy-co-v-united-states-nysd-1900.