Merritt v. Welsh

Decision Date01 October 1881
Citation104 U.S. 694,26 L.Ed. 896
PartiesMERRITT v. WELSH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The Solicitor-General for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. William M. Evarts, Mr. Stephen G. Clarke, and Mr. Edwin B. Smith, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought by S. & W. Welsh, the plaintiffs below, to recover back duties alleged by them to have been illegally exacted by Merritt, the defendant below, as collector of the port of New York, on certain sugars imported by them. The importations were made in 1879, and were subject to the duties imposed by schedule G, sect. 2504, of the Revised Statutes, and by the third section of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 127, which are in the following words:——

'SECT. 2504: Schedule G:

'Sugar not above number seven, Dutch standard in color: one and three-quarter cents per pound.

'Sugar above number seven, and not above number ten, Dutch standard in color: two cents per pound.

'Sugar above number ten, and not above number thirteen, Dutch standard in color: two and one-quarter cents per pound.

'Sugar above number thirteen, and not above number sixteen, Dutch standard in color: two and three-quarter cents per pound.

'Sugar above number sixteen, and not above number twenty, Dutch standard in color: three and one-quarter cents per pound.'

The following sections of the Revised Statutes were appended as provisos to the original acts from which the above articles were taken:—— 'SECT. 2914. The standard by which the color and grades of sugar are to be regulated shall be selected and furnished to the collectors of such ports of entry as may be necessary, by the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, and in such manner as he may deem expedient.

'SECT. 2915. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, by regulation, prescribe and require that samples from packages of sugar shall be taken by the proper officers, in such manner as to ascertain the true quality of such sugar; and the weights of sugar imported in casks or boxes shall be marked distinctly by the custom-house weigher, by scoring the figures indelibly on each package.'

To the foregoing duties twenty-five per cent was added by the third section of the act of March 3, 1875.

The plaintiffs claimed that the sugars imported were all below number 7, Dutch standard in color, and were, therefore, chargeable, under schedule G, with only a duty of one and three-quarter cents per pound, with the addition of twenty-five per cent, under the act of 1875. The defendant, under general instructions from the Treasury Department, rated them at a higher grade, and charged a duty of two cents upon some of them, and two and one-quarter cents upon others, with the addition of the twenty-five per cent, under the act of 1875. His action was based on the position that the sugars in question had been colored by artificial means, so as to reduce them, in appearance, below the grade of the Dutch standard to which they properly belonged according to the amount of crystallized sugar which they contained, as shown by chemical test by the polariscope.

The treasury instructions under which the test was applied were issued on the 19th of July and the 2d of September, 1879. After premising that it had been decided by the courts that the term 'Dutch standard in color,' as used in the statutes, means the color of the sugar obtained by the ordinary processes of manufacture as practised at the time of the enactment of the law, and that any means used to degrade the color of sugars during or after the process of manufacture is a fraud upon the revenue, the instruction of July 19, 1879, declares that——

'All sugars containing ninety per cent, and not more than ninety-four per cent, of crystallizable sugar, the apparent color of which is not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified as above No. 7 and not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color.

'All sugars containing more than ninety-four per cent of crystallizable sugar, the apparent color of which is not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color, shall be classified as above No. 10 and not above No. 13, Dutch standard in color.'

As the presence of water in the sugars was found to interfere with uniform results, the instruction was changed in September, as follows:——

'All sugars the apparent color of which, as imported, is not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, and which contain over ninety-three per cent, and not over ninety-seven per cent, of crystallizable sugar in one hundred parts of the dry substance, shall be classified as No. 7 and not above No. 10, Dutch standard.

'All sugars the apparent color of which, as imported, is not above No. 10, Dutch standard in color, and which contain over ninety-seven per cent of crystallizable sugar in one hundred parts of the dry substance, shall be classified as above No. 10 and not above No. 13, Dutch standard.'

It was shown beyond dispute, on the trial, that, so far § their color was concerned, the sugars were below No. 7 of the Dutch standard,—a grade chargeable, by the statute, with only one and three-quarters cents per pound; but the court allowed the defendant to prove, if he could, that the color of the sugars was an artificial color, imparted after the process of manufacture, or after they became the sugars of commerce. As no proof was offered to show that they were artificially colored after the process of manufacture was completed, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the difference of duty.

The defendant offered to prove that color was imparted to the sugars in the course of manufacture, by the use of an extra quantity of lime (some quantity of which is always used to neutralize acids) or by the introduction of molasses, and increasing the temperature of the vacuum-pan or boiler; but this evidence the court held to be incompetent. To narrow the point of difference, he offered to show that coloring matter, namely, molasses, was introduced into the vacuum-pan or boiler after the mass had been brought to the state of sugar, but before its final passage through the coolers and the centrifugal tubs, the last process through which it goes; but this evidence was also decided to be incompetent.

The position and argument of the defendant may be more fully shown by the instructions which his counsel asked the court to give the jury, and which were severally refused. They were as follows:——

'1. That if the jury shall find from the evidence that the true color of the sugar in suit, as ascertained by comparing them in every respect with the standard selected by the Secretary of the Treasury, and actually used in ascertaining and determining their dutiable character, was not sugar 'not above number seven Dutch standard in color,' they shall find a verdict for the defendant.

'2. That if they shall find from the evidence that on December 22, 1870, and prior thereto, the sugars of commerce were comprised substantially of crystallized sugar and molasses, and that the color of the different grades of such sugar was produced by molasses, the highest grades being No. 20, Dutch standard in color, having no molasses in them, and the lower grades being 16, 13, 10, and 7, Dutch standard in color, having molasses in them, each of the lower grades having more molasses than the other, so that the greatest quantity of molasses was contained in the lowest grades;

'And if the jury shall also find from the evidence that the sugars in suit were not generally known as the sugars of commerce in December 22, 1870, and prior thereto, and that their color at the time of importation was not produced by molasses, but was produced by the introduction of some foreign substance after the sugars were made for the purpose of giving to them a color darker than their true color;

'And if the jury shall also find from the evidence that the true color of said sugars is different from their apparent color, and that the true color of said sugars at the time of their importation was above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, they shall find a verdict for the defendant.

'If the jury shall find that the sugars were colored with burnt molasses, and were manufactured prior to the time when the burnt molasses was introduced into the vacuum-pan, and that the same was so introduced into the pan merely for the purpose of producing a dark surface-color upon the sugars, so that the sugars, the true color of which was above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, appeared to the eye by comparison with the Dutch standard in color to be sugars not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, and shall also find that the true color of the sugar when it became manufactured was above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, they shall find a verdict for the defendant.

'The court ruled there was no evidence to submit to the jury tending to show that the color was not imparted to the sugar during the process of manufacture.

'4. If the jury shall find from the evidence that the Dutch standard consiss of sugars in which the color indicates the grade of the sugar, and shall also find that the color of the samples in suit does not indicate at all the grades of the sugar, but that the sugars in suit are in fact of a high grade, say No. 16, as indicated by the Dutch standard, but have a surface-color of the lowest grade, say not above No. 7, Dutch standard in color, which surface color was imparted to it after the crystals of sugar were found in the vacuum-pan at a time when the boiling of the sugar was completed, they shall find a verdict for the defendant.

'5. That the surface or external color of the sugars in suit was not necessarily the color by which their dutiable character was to be ascertained, but the true color of the sugars in suit, as ascertained by comparison with the standard which was in use by the collector,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Burns v. Alcala 8212 1708
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 18, 1975
    ...1336, 1343, 28 L.Ed.2d 695 (1971); Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U.S. 258, 269, 22 S.Ct. 463, 468, 46 L.Ed. 528 (1902); Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694, 702—703, 26 L.Ed. 896 (1882). 5 The current regulation provides that '(f)ederal financial participation is available in . . . (p)ayments with re......
  • Heartland by-Products, Inc. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 19, 1999
    ...manufacturer has the right to fashion goods to avoid the burden of high duties, coincidentally, in a sugar case. See Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694, 701, 26 L.Ed. 896 (1881).20 At the time, the duty was assessed on sugar based on its color. The collector of the port of New York, defendant, ......
  • Ford Motor Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 9, 2017
    ...the principle that a manufacturer may purposely manufacture goods in such manner as to evade higher duties. Merritt v. Welsh , 104 U.S. 694, 701–02, 704, 26 L.Ed. 896 (1881) (a case involving the importation of sugar, which had been darkened with molasses during its manufacture to escape hi......
  • Lansdown v. Faris
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 7, 1933
    ...Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168), and this must be done "whatever may have been in the minds of individual members of Congress" (Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 702, 26 L. Ed. 896). In examining that language we are to take words in their common meaning (Caminetti v. U. S., 242 U. S. 470, 485, 37 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Tariff Engineering: Opportunities For Duty Mitigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 7, 2021
    ...ask questions. When challenged, an importer must be prepared to defend its tariff engineering decisions. Footnotes 1 Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694 2 Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U.S. 337 (1891) and United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407 (1912). 3 ubsequent post-import use of the goods is ty......
  • Tariff Engineering: Opportunities For Duty Mitigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 7, 2021
    ...ask questions. When challenged, an importer must be prepared to defend its tariff engineering decisions. Footnotes 1 Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694 2 Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U.S. 337 (1891) and United States v. Citroen, 223 U.S. 407 (1912). 3 ubsequent post-import use of the goods is ty......
  • Tariff Classification And The U.S. Federal Courts: The Twenty Most Significant Precedents
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 14, 2022
    ...itself, in the condition in which it is imported." Thus, the condition-as-imported precedent was established. 2 ' Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694 This is the Supreme Court decision that recognized an importer's right to fashion a product to enjoy a lower duty rate'provided that at the time o......
  • Tariff Classification And The U.S. Federal Courts: The Twenty Most Significant Precedents
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 14, 2022
    ...itself, in the condition in which it is imported." Thus, the condition-as-imported precedent was established. 2 ' Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694 This is the Supreme Court decision that recognized an importer's right to fashion a product to enjoy a lower duty rate'provided that at the time o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT