United States v. Wallace

4 Ct. Cust. 142, 1913 WL 19797, 1913 CCPA LEXIS 67
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedMay 6, 1913
DocketNo. 1086
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 4 Ct. Cust. 142 (United States v. Wallace) 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. Wallace, 4 Ct. Cust. 142, 1913 WL 19797, 1913 CCPA LEXIS 67 (ccpa 1913).

Opinion

Martin, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal relates to certain entries of crude horse-radish roots which were imported in their natural state. They were returned by the appraiser as vegetables in their natural state, not specially provided for, and accordingly were assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 269 of the tariff act of 1909.

The importers protested against this assessment, claiming that the merchandise was entitled to free entry as a vegetable substance, unmanufactured, under paragraph 630 of the same act.

This protest was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers, and the Government now appeals from that decision.

The following is a copy of the two competing paragraphs:

269. Vegetables in their natural state, not specially provided for in this section, twenty-ñve per centum ad valorem.
(Free list.) 630. Moss, seaweeds, and vegetable substances, crude or unmanu-factured, not otherwise specially provided for in this section.

The word “vegetables” has been defined in numerous decisions of the courts, and these definitions indicate the proper decision of the present case.

The case of Robertson v. Salomon (130 U. S., 412) raised the issue whether white beans wore classifiable as vegetables in their natural state or as seeds not specially provided for under the tariff act of 1883. In the course of the opinion delivered in that case, Bradley, Judge, speaking for the court, said:

On the other hand, in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term “vegetables. ” As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the common use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary or can be produced.

[143]*143Acpordingly the court held in the foregoing case that white beans were vegetables within the tariff meaning of that term, although botanically speaking they were also seeds.

In the case of Nix v. Hedden (149 U. S., 304), the Supreme Court passed upon the question whether tomatoes were vegetables in their natural state or were fruits not specially provided for. In the decision of the court Gray, Judge, said:

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and pease. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables, which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after, the soup, fish,or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.

In the case of Von Bremen v. United States (168 Fed., 889), the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, had before it the question whether, under the tariff act of 1897, truffles in tin packages were dutiable as vegetables prepared or preserved, not especially provided for, or were dutiable by similitude with mushrooms in tins. The court said, speaking by Ward, Judge:

Though truffles belong to the vegetable kingdom, they are used solely as a condiment in cooking and never separately served as a table dish, and are not included in the trade or in ordinary usage among vegetables.

In the case of Pierce v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 171; T. D. 31215), this court held that under the tariff act of 1897 capers were not classifiable as vegetables, but were dutiable as an unenu-merated article. In the opinion De Vries, Judge, speaking for the court, said:

This court, therefore, is of the opinion that capers, being a condiment used to flavor vegetables and meats rather than to be eaten as a vegetable, is not included within the provisions of paragraph 241 of the tariff act of 1897. It is not a vegetable, nor is it a vegetable pickle in the sense those words are used in the tariff act.

In the case of United States v. Shing Shun & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 388; T. D. 32113), this court held that melon seed, which had been reduced in size by peeling and which had been roasted and salted for food, are not vegetables under the tariff act of 1909, but are within the provisions of the act for nonenumerated manufactured articles. De Vries, Judge, speaking for the court, said:

The fact that they are prepared for and eaten as a relish would seem to put them beyond the category of vegetables, as that term is used in customs acts.

The foregoing decisions indicate that in the tariff acts the word “vegetables” has not been employed in a strictly botanical sense, but rather has been applied to those articles of food which constitute in common acceptation the vegetable part of a repast. These are such articles of food as commonly grow in kitchen gardens. This definition excludes horse-radish, because that article, while botani[144]*144cally a vegetable, is not commonly given, that name when it appears upon the dinner table, and in use is not a food at all, but only a condiment.

Therefore the court is of the opinion that the horse-radish roots in question are not vegetables within the purview of paragraph 269, above copied.

The question whiph next arises in the case is whether or not the importation is entitled to free entry as a vegetable substance, unmanu-factured, under the provisions of paragraph 630 of the act.

The Government contends that the use of the words “vegetable substance” in paragraph 630, in conjunction with the provisions for moss and seaweed, implies that the classification in question was intended to include only such vegetable substances as are generically similar to moss and seaweed. It is claimed by the Government that moss and seaweed are never eaten either as food or condiments, and that this fact establishes a generical difference between those articles and horse-radish, since the latter article is almost exclusively used as a condiment.

The following quotations, however, contradict the premise upon which the foregoing argument of the Government rests:

Standard Dictionary:

Moss, n. * * * Ceylon moss, any one of various seaweeds of the roselangle family, * * * forming an extensive article of trade and used for food and various other purposes.
Iceland moss, an edible lichen of the artic regions, which, after steeping several hours for the expulsion of a bitter principle, is made into a nutritious jelly and sometimes used medicinally for lung troubles.
*******
Carrageen, n. A small purplish-colored edible marine alga of rocky coasts; when bleached, the Irish moss of commerce.

New International Encyclopaedia:

Seaweed, In a wide sense, any plant of the class algee; in a more restricted sense, only plants of this class which live in the sea. The term is also applied to any plant growing in the sea.

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

Related

Wo Kee v. United States
68 Cust. Ct. 61 (U.S. Customs Court, 1972)
George E. Athans Co. v. United States
56 Cust. Ct. 395 (U.S. Customs Court, 1966)
A. Millner Co. v. United States
39 Cust. Ct. 244 (U.S. Customs Court, 1957)
United States v. Schoenfeld & Sons, Inc.
44 C.C.P.A. 179 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1957)
George Beurhaus Co. v. United States
32 Cust. Ct. 269 (U.S. Customs Court, 1954)
Tower v. United States
19 Cust. Ct. 12 (U.S. Customs Court, 1947)
H. E. Schwitters & Sons v. United States
26 C.C.P.A. 288 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1938)
Bragno v. United States
21 C.C.P.A. 74 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Togasaki v. United States
12 Ct. Cust. 463 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1925)
United States v. Coroneos Bros.
9 Ct. Cust. 220 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1919)
United States v. Rice Co.
9 Ct. Cust. 165 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1919)
Reed v. United States
5 Ct. Cust. 95 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1914)
United States v. Nix
4 Ct. Cust. 145 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ct. Cust. 142, 1913 WL 19797, 1913 CCPA LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wallace-ccpa-1913.