Junge v. Hedden
| Decision Date | 09 January 1889 |
| Citation | 37 F. 197 |
| Parties | JUNGE v. HEDDEN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties.
The article known as 'Dental Rubber,' and used for making the plates in which false teeth are set, is dutiable at 25 per cent. ad valorem under Schedule N of the tariff act of March 3, 1883.
The word 'article,' as used in tariff acts, is not to be restricted to articles put in a condition for final use, but is used in a broad sense, and covers equally things manufactured, things unmanufactured, and things partially manufactured.
The article known as 'Dental Rubber,' and used for making the plates in which false teeth are set, is dutiable at 25 per cent. ad valorem under Schedule N of the tariff act of March 3, 1883.
The word 'article,' as used in tariff acts, is not to be restricted to articles put in a condition for final use, but is used in a broad sense, and covers equally things manufactured, things unmanufactured, and things partially manufactured.
The plaintiff in 1885 imported into the port of New York certain goods composed of India rubber with an admixture of sulphur and coloring matter, and known as 'Dental Rubber,' and used for the manufacture of the plates in which false teeth are set. The defendant, as collector of customs, classified them for duty at 25 per cent. ad valorem under the clause in Schedule N of the act of March 3, 1883, imposing that rate of duty upon 'articles composed of India rubber, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act. ' Paragraph 454, Tariff Index, new. The plaintiff, by an alternative protest, claimed that the importations were free, either actually or by similitude, as 'India rubber, crude, and milk of,' or that they should pay only 20 per cent. ad valorem as a non-enumerated manufacture by virtue of section 2513 of the act of March 3, 1883. The testimony on one side and the other was substantially to the same effect, to-wit, that the articles in question were known in trade and commerce of this country at the time of the passage of the act and since as 'Dental Rubber,' and used exclusively by dentists for the uses above indicated; that there was prior to and on March 3, 1883, and has been since, an article known in trade and commerce of this country under the name of 'Crude Rubber' which is not this article; that crude rubber is put to many uses other than those of dentists; that the importations in question, in the condition imported, are ready to go to the dentist for manipulation by him; that, commercially speaking, it has been spoiled for any other use; and that any further manipulation or manufacture prior to that applied to it by the dentists would unfit it for their purposes.
Stephen G. Clarke and Charles Curie, for plaintiff.
Stephen A. Walker, U.S. Atty., and Macgrane Coxe, Asst. U.S. Atty.
LACOMBE, J., (orally, after stating the facts as above.)
Descriptive terms applied to articles of commerce are of course to be understood according to the acceptation given to them by commercial men in our own ports at the time of the passage of the act in which they are found. Under the testimony therefore, these importations are not 'crude rubber,' or 'milk of rubber,' enumerated on the free list, (paragraph 724;) and in fact the plaintiff, as I understand him, does not contend that they are. He claims, however, that under the similitude clause they are to be classified with crude rubber, and should thus pass free of duty. In order to entitle them to the provisions of the similitude clause, (section 2499,) the must be non-enumerated. Defendant contends that they will be found enumerated in paragraph 454: 'Articles composed of India rubber, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty-five per centum ad valorem. ' It was at this rate that the collector assessed and collected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.O. Andersen & Co. v. United States
...best source, however, to which we should apply to determine the definition of a word used in a statute is the statute itself. ' Junge v. Hedden (C.C.) 37 F. 197; Id., 146 U.S. 13 Sup.Ct. 88, 36 L.Ed. 953. The meaning of the word 'article' must therefore be gathered from a consideration of t......
-
United States v. Julius Wile Bro. & Co.
... ... different meanings, unless that is made clearly apparent by ... the connection in which the word is used. ' Junge v ... Hedden (C.C.) 37 F. 197, affirmed 146 U.S. 233, 13 ... Sup.Ct. 88, 36 L.Ed. 953. And it is argued that because the ... phrase under ... ...