Tower v. United States

33 Cust. Ct. 181, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 587
United States Customs Court·Decided November 4, 1954·No. C. D. 1651·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Johnson, Judge:

This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on buttermilk powder, imported from Canada in April and May 1948, at 3Ko cents per pound under paragraph 708 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as dried buttermilk, containing more than 6 per centum of butterfat, and, therefore, dutiable as dried whole milk. It is claimed that the merchandise contained less than 6 per centum of butterfat and is, consequently, dutiable at 1% cents per pound as dried buttermilk, under said paragraph, as modified.

[182]*182The pertinent provisions of the tariff act and its modification are as follows:

Pab. 708. (b) Dried whole milk, 6}Í2 cents per pound; * * * dried skimmed milk and dried buttermilk, 3 cents per pound: Provided, That dried skimmed milk containing more than 3 per centum of butterfat, and dried buttermilk containing more than 6 per centum of butterfat, shall be dutiable as dried whole milk; * * *.
Pab. 708. (b) [as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T, D. 51802]
Dried whole milk_3}íoji per lb.
Dried skimmed milk and dried buttermilk_ per lb.

The issues in this case are the same as those involved in Central Vermont Railway, Inc. v. United States, 8 Cust. Ct. 75, C. D. 581, the record of which was incorporated herein. In that case, the Government chemist analyzed the merchandise by the so-called Roese-Gottlieb method and found the butterfat content to be over 6 per centum. The plaintiff contended that the fatty extract of dried buttermilk obtained by that method included, in addition to the glycerides of fatty acids, lecithin and sterols, and that the proportion of the latter in excess of that found in the fatty extract of milk should be subtracted, the result being the true butterfat content. On the record presented, the court sustained the plaintiff’s protest upon a finding that the method of analysis used by the plaintiff gave a more accurate result. In the course of the opinion, the court said (p. 80):

We think the testimony produced on the part of the plaintiff shows that something more must be done to the result obtained by the Roese-Gottlieb test in order to determine the true butterfat content of dried buttermilk. This is shown as a result of experiments undertaken by chemists engaged in research work, whose findings have been embodied in articles published in works cited by the plaintiff’s witness.
While the witnesses on the part of the Government do not agree with this and consider the Roese-Gottlieb test sufficient, one of them stated that he was willing to accept the statements of plaintiff’s witness that there is considerable difference in the fatty extract of buttermilk and the fatty extract of normal milk, and, while he doesn’t know whether or not the range of limitation of lecithin in dried buttermilk is much greater than in normal milk, he was willing to accept the statement that such is the fact.
The court is loath to reject the findings of specialists in a particular field of science, and we are persuaded from the evidence produced that the method adopted by the Government chemists does not give as accurate a result as that outlined by the plaintiff’s witness. This is particularly true in view of the fact that no long-continued customs practice connected with the analysis of dried buttermilk by the customs laboratories at the various ports of the United States has been shown. In fact, the evidence discloses that Government chemists have had very little occasion to examine the commodity dried buttermilk for the purpose of determining the butterfat content.

[183]*183The point at issue is tbe butterfat content of the imported merchandise, which, in turn, involves the meaning of the term “butterfat,” as used in the tariff act, and the accuracy of the methods of analysis employed. At the outset of the trial, it was agreed that the Government chemists had followed the prescribed United States Customs Laboratory method in making their determinations on the three lots of dried buttermilk involved herein, which method is known as the Roese-Gottlieb method. The results obtained are set forth .in reports attached to the official papers and show a butterfat content of 7.4 per centum, 7.0 per centum, and 7.3 per centum, respectively.

Copies of documents describing the United States Customs Laboratory methods for milk and milk products were received in evidence as plaintiff’s collective exhibit 1. According to statements therein, the recognized official methods for determining the fat in milk and milk products make no allowance for the phospholipid and sterol contents of the fat of dried skim milk and dried buttermilk, no procedures being available for the accurate and precise determination of sterols and phospholipids in milk fat. Plaintiff claims that the method is inaccurate in that no such allowance was made. The basis of the dispute, therefore, is whether the “butterfat” of buttermilk is the fatty extract obtained by the Roese-Gottlieb method, which includes the phospholipins and sterols, or whether it is the fatty extract, less the proportion of phospholipins and sterols which is in excess of that found in normal milk.

At the trial, plaintiff called Dr. David Levowitz, who had testified in the earlier case. He is a chemist and director of the New Jersey Dairy Laboratories. He has served as consultant to various companies in work regarding the technical nature of dairy products and has been chairman of the Public Health Standards Committee of Dairy Industries Societies International, president of the Metropolitan Dairy Technology Society, and a member of committees of the International Association of Milk Sanitarians. He has also served as analyst or consultant to health departments of a number of towns in New Jersey and to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture. He has published articles concerning milk and milk products.

Dr. Levowitz testified as follows: Butterfat is the fatty extract of either normal whole milk or normal butter and consists of glycerides of fatty acids and a normal level of phospholipins and sterols. The phospholipin molecule is a combination of protein and fat, and the phospholipin family includes lecithin, cephalin, and sphingomyelin. Phospholipins and sterols form a membrane or sheath which surrounds the fat particles in milk and which permits the fat to remain in an emulsion. When milk is churned, the fat particles are broken up so that the fat from the larger globules goes into the butter, while the [184]*184surrounding material and the extremely small fat globules remain in the buttermilk. Consequently, the proportion of phospholipins and sterols in buttermilk is much greater than that in milk, whereas that in butter is less.

Dr. Levowitz described in detail his method of analyzing the merchandise herein. Briefly, this involved an extraction of the fatty material by the Roese-Gottlieb method, a determination of the total phospholipin content of the fatty extract, and the subtraction of the same with certain corrections, so that a phospholipin and sterol content equal to that in normal milk or normal butter was included. The corrections were made for both butter and milk since there has been a debate as to whether the term “butterfat” means the fat of butter or the fat of milk. Dr. Levowitz explained:

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

Tower v. United States, 33 Cust. Ct. 181, 1954 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 587 (cusc 1954).

33 Cust. Ct. 181 (Tower v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gonzalez v. United States
53 Cust. Ct. 149 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
Faehndrich v. United States
49 Cust. Ct. 1 (U.S. Customs Court, 1962)