Wing On Wo v. United States

S.D. New York

Wing On Wo v. United States

175 F. 891, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1909

DocketNo. 5,504

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. 891 (Wing On Wo v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wing On Wo v. United States, 175 F. 891, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774 (S.D.N.Y. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

The local appraiser in his report describes the article in question as a Chinese root called “wai san” and used by them as a vegetable. It was assessed for duty as a vegetable in its natural state at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 257 of the tariff act (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650]). The importer claims that it is dutiable at 1 cent per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem as “drugs advanced in value,” under paragraph 20. Various other claims were also set forth in the protest, but were not pressed upon the argument.

The fact that it, is used as an article of food takes it away from the drug paragraphs. I concur in the decision of the Board.

Decision affirmed.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

The local appraiser in his report describes the article in question as a Chinese root called “wai san” and used by them as a vegetable. It was assessed for duty as a vegetable in its natural state at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 257 of the tariff act (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650]). The importer claims that it is dutiable at 1 cent per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem as “drugs advanced in value,” under paragraph 20. Various other claims were also set forth in the protest, but were not pressed upon the argument.

The fact that it, is used as an article of food takes it away from the drug paragraphs. I concur in the decision of the Board.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. 891, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-on-wo-v-united-states-nysd-1909.