United States v. Danker & Marston

2 Ct. Cust. 522, 1912 CCPA LEXIS 40
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided February 1, 1912·No. No. 731·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal involves the classification of a commodity imported at Boston, Mass., and known as gum tragasol. Some of the gum was imported under the tariff act of 1897 and some of it under- the tariff act of 1909. The collector of customs rated the product as a nononumorated manufactured article and accordingly the importations were assessed for duty at 20 per cent ad valorem either under the provisions of section 6 of the act of 1897 or under the provisions of paragraph 480 of the act of 1909 as the date of importation might require. With the exception that the word “section” is substituted for the word “act” paragraph 480 is a reenactment of section 6, and the particular part of the section and paragraph pertinent to the case is as follows:

* * * There shall be levied, collected, and paid * * * on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for, • * * * a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem.

The importers protested that the merchandise was not dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article not provided for, and, among other grounds of objection to the collector’s classification, it was averred that gum tragasol was entitled to free entry whether imported under the tariff act of 1897 or under that.of 1909. This claim was based on the following, language of paragraph 482 of the free' list of the tariff act of 1897, .which was reenacted in paragraph 499 of the free list of the tariff act of 1909:

Articles in a crude state used in dyeing or tanning not specially provided for. * * *

[523] The board sustained the protest on the ground that the goods were entitled to admission free of duty and the Government appealed.

Tragasol is a gum extracted by patented processes from the locust bean, sometimes known as St. John’s bread. The patents are owned by the Gum Tragasol Supply Co. (Ltd.), of Hooton, England, and it seems to be conceded that the entire output of the commodity under consideration is manufactured by that concern. From the testimony in the case and the patents in evidence we gather that the locust beans are separated from the pods and then after being submitted to a boiling and soaking process are, after drying, put through decorti-cating machinés in order to free the cotyledons from the husks and germs. The husked cotyledons are next placed in yats where, steeped in water, they are reduced to a pulp, which is slowly raised to a temperature of 180°. After cooking the pulp for two hours or more the gum therein separates itself from the vegetable substances involving it, and, with the water which violent agitation has forced it to absorb, is withdrawn and filtered into a pool, where it is treated with formalin, carbolic acid, or some other chemical for the purpose of preserving the product from deterioration. The article thus processed is known as gum tragasol and constitutes the merchandise imported. In the making of tragasol it appears that great care must be taken to thoroughly husk the beans in order that the pigment carried by the envelope inclosing the cotyledons may not discolor the gum when extracted. If the husks are not completely removed, then it seems that at some stage of the subsequent proceedings the materials must be treated with an appropriate chemical so as to render the pigment insoluble, and thus permit of the withdrawal of the gum as a colorless liquid. Gum tragasol is principally used in the dyeing of textiles, in which industry it serves the purpose of a carrying medium to convey the color into the body of the material to be dyed. Due to the fact that tragasol prepared for use in dyeing is more than 99 per cent water and contains less than 1 per cent of solid matter, colors carried by it penetrate the fabric readily and evenly and are characterized by a transparency which seems to be especially desirable in dyeing woven goods of a lustrous texture.

On this state of facts the Government asks for a reversal, first, because the importation is not an article in a crude state and therefore not dutiable as claimed by the importers; second, because it is dutiable as assessed; and, third, • because the tragasol imported since August 5, 1909, if not dutiable as assessed, is dutiable as a vegetable extract used in dyeing under the provisions of paragraph 22 of the tariff act of 1909, which paragraph, in so far as it is pertinent to the issue, is as follows:

22. * * * All extracts of vegetable origin suitable for dyeing, coloring, staining or tanning, * * * and not specially provided for in this section, fifteen per centum ad valorem.

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

United States v. Danker & Marston, 2 Ct. Cust. 522, 1912 CCPA LEXIS 40 (ccpa 1912).

2 Ct. Cust. 522 (United States v. Danker & Marston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union Carbide Int'l Co. v. United States
66 Cust. Ct. 46 (U.S. Customs Court, 1971)
S. B. Penick & Co. v. United States
59 Cust. Ct. 160 (U.S. Customs Court, 1967)
United States v. Border Brokerage Co.
47 C.C.P.A. 75 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1960)
Border Brokerage Co. v. United States
41 Cust. Ct. 49 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
B. L. Lemke & Co. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 253 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
Biological Raw Products Co. v. United States
25 Cust. Ct. 1 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Tower v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 152 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
Naumes Forwarding Service v. United States
24 Cust. Ct. 93 (U.S. Customs Court, 1950)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States
16 Cust. Ct. 121 (U.S. Customs Court, 1946)
Protest 96543-K of T. D. Downing Co.
14 Cust. Ct. 269 (U.S. Customs Court, 1945)
United States v. United States Rubber Co.
31 C.C.P.A. 174 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1944)
United States Rubber Co. v. United States
10 Cust. Ct. 342 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
F. Lester Kittle, Inc. v. United States
10 Cust. Ct. 281 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
United States v. Nichols Copper Co.
29 C.C.P.A. 186 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1941)
Fynaut v. United States
23 C.C.P.A. 265 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1936)
United States v. R. Hillier's Son Co.
16 Ct. Cust. 103 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1928)
Togasaki v. United States
12 Ct. Cust. 463 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
Ishimitsu Co. v. United States
12 Ct. Cust. 477 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
United States v. Maine Central Railroad
7 Ct. Cust. 114 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1916)
Cone v. United States
5 Ct. Cust. 491 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1915)