United States v. Hensel

7 Ct. Cust. 391, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 6
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJanuary 16, 1917
DocketNo. 1734
StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ct. Cust. 391 (United States v. Hensel) 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
United States v. Hensel, 7 Ct. Cust. 391, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 6 (ccpa 1917).

Opinion

De Vries, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The merchandise here in suit consists of a variety of indigoid dyes, so called, admittedly produced from naphthalene, which concededly is a product of coal tar. The dyes are described and referred to in the record as (a) indigo in paste; (⅞) thioindigo pink, 247 paste; (c) thio-indigo red, B paste; (d) thioindigo scarlet, 6086 powder; (e) thio-indigo red, 970 paste. They were classified for duty by the collector at the port of New York as “coal-tar dyes” under the terms of paragraph 20 of the tariff act of 1913, providing:

20. Coal-tar dyes or colors, not specially provided for in this section, * ⅜ ⅜.

The Board of General Appraisers reversed the decision of the collector and sustained the importers’ protest, claiming the dyes or [392]*392colors entitled, to free entry as “dyes obtained from indigo,” under paragraph 514 of the free list of that act, reading:

514. Indigo, natural or synthetic, dry or suspended in water, and dyes obtained from indigo.

The Government appeals.

The issue presented to this court for determination, therefore, is the single one, Are these dyes “coal-tar dyes or colors” or “dyes obtained from indigo,” as those terms are used in the quoted parts of the existing customs revenue law?

A single witness of exceptional information and fairness testified before the board. He was a chemist and colorist connected with the importing firm. The material and controlling parts of his testimony may well be stated in the words of counsel and the witness:

Q. Is the indigo in those dyestuffs original or in a modified form? — A. In a modified form.
Q. What do you mean by saying the indigo is in a modified form? — A. I mean by that that they can Je.made from indigo, that their chemical constituents are very similar. In these articles, however, the NH molecule has been replaced principally by one sulphur molecule; they have an extra sulphur molecule.
⅜ ⅜ * ⅜ * ⅜ *
Q. Can these colors be made from the material indigo? — A. They can.
Q. What? — A. Yes, they can.
Q. But in practice are they made from the material indigo? — A. No.
Q. Are any of them, any of these five made from indigo? — A. I don’t know.
Q. What? — A. I don’t know.
Q. Look at the five and say which ones can be commercially obtained from indigo?— A. Indigo paste.
Q. The process of producing the other four dyes, the four other than the indigo paste in this case, is it commercially practicable to make them from indigo? — A. No, the process would be too expensive.
* ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ * *
Q. (By General Appraiser Sullivan.) Are you acquainted with indigo in its natural state? — A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are the dyes referred to by Mr. Strauss and referred to in the invoices, are they obtained from indigo in its natural state? — A. Not on a commercial scale, because it would be too expensive.
General Appraiser Sullivan. The question strikes me that you must prove that dyes obtained from indigo were obtained from indigo.
Q. (By General Appraiser McClelland.) Is indigo obtained from naphthalene? — ■ A. Yes.
Q. Aren’t these four exhibits obtained from naphthalene also? — A. Yes.
Q. The same as indigo? — A. Yes.
Q. Could these have been directly from indigo? — A. Yes, they can be derived directly from indigo.
Q. But you stop the indigo process; the process of making indigo is a further process than making these dyes? — A. Yes; that is it.
Q. (By General Appraiser Brown.) You get the same results in making this from naphthalene as you would from indigo? — A. The same chemical results.
Q. (By Mr. Lawrence.) As I understand you, Doctor, one out of the five samples here was made directly from indigo? — A. Yes; indigo paste is made directly from indigo.
[393]*393Q. That is the stuff in this bottle; that is, indigo paste is made from indigo direct?— A. Yes.
Q. And the other four.are not made from indigo? — A. Not commercially, but they can be made from indigo.
Q. When you say they can be made you mean it is a mechanical possibility to so make them? — A. It is a possibility, but that process would be more expensive; therefore they are made by a different process.
Q. And it wouldn’t be commercially profitable for a colorist to make these four other colors from indigo direct? — A. According to my knowledge, no.
Q. Now, naphthalene is a derivative of coal tar? — A. Yes.
Q. And that is in what form? — A. It is in crystals.
Q. Do you know how that is converted into indigo? — A. Yes.
Q. What is the common method of converting it into indigo, step by step? — A. From naphthalene the first step is that tannic acid is made by oxidation, and that is converted into anthranil acid; this anthranil acid is treated with glycolic acid, and so phenol glycolic acid is made, and this is treated with caustic soda, and so you get indoxil, and this is oxidized to indigo.
Q. If you will take the same napthalene, and your object was to produce any of the colors mentioned here except the indigo in paste, which of the processes as given, which you have outlined, would be eliminated? — A. The last two processes I mentioned.
Q. They would be eliminated? — A. The method is the same until anthranil acid is made.

From and upon tbe foregoing testimony tbe board predicated its decision, tbe philosophy of which is concisely paragraphed in the following excerpt from the opinion in the case:

The dyes in question are substantially and chemically dyes obtained from indigo, having the same or substantially the same chemical constituents as dyes obtained from the substance indigo, although they are, in fact, manufactured from naphthalene, which is also the basis of indigo. In other words, the product is the same as if it had been made from indigo, and the tariff levies duties on products or results of manufacturing processes rather than on methods of producing them.

The court is unable to agree with this reasoning. Upon the facts the importations are not obtained from indigo but napthalene from which also is obtained indigo. Both are sister products of the same parent which in turn relates its origin to coal tar. Both are coal-tar products. Neither is the product of or obtained from the other.

Moreover, the plenary power' and purpose of Congress to levy duties on methods of production as well as products can not be questioned. The tariff laws abound with such instances.

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

Related

Merritt v. Welsh
104 U.S. 694 (Supreme Court, 1882)
Klipstein v. United States
4 Ct. Cust. 510 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ct. Cust. 391, 1917 CCPA LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hensel-ccpa-1917.