United States v. Morningstar

168 F. 541, 94 C.C.A. 123, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 16, 1909·No. No. 185 (4,964)·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The relevant paragraphs are both on the free list and read as follows:

“Par. 695. Wax, vegetable or mineral.”
“Par. 633. Paraffin.”

The importation is known as “carnauba wax substitute”; carnauba wax being a vegetable wax. The government’s chemist admits that, although the so-called mineral waxes are not regarded as waxes in the chemical sense, paraffin belongs to that group. Evidently Congress used the words “mineral wax” in their popular sense; otherwise, they would cover nothing. The article in question is compounded of carnauba wax and paraffin, and when completed is to all appearance a waxy substance, used for the same purpose as are other waxes, and containing no animal wax. We concur with the board and the Circuit Court.

The decision is affirmed.

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

United States v. Morningstar, 168 F. 541, 94 C.C.A. 123, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4467 (2d Cir. 1909).

168 F. 541 (United States v. Morningstar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beiersdorf v. United States
17 Cust. Ct. 61 (U.S. Customs Court, 1946)
P. Beiersdorf & Co. v. United States
31 C.C.P.A. 158 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1944)
Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States
10 Cust. Ct. 251 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
United States v. Coccaro
4 Ct. Cust. 506 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)