Oil Co v. United States, TIDE-WATER

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBROWN
Citation18 S.Ct. 837,171 U.S. 210,43 L.Ed. 139
PartiesOIL CO. v. UNITED STATES
Decision Date31 May 1898
Docket NumberTIDE-WATER,No. 149

171 U.S. 210
18 S.Ct. 837
43 L.Ed. 139
TIDE-WATER OIL CO.

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 149.
May 31, 1898.

Page 211

This was a petition by a corporation of New Jersey for a drawback of duties paid upon certain shooks imported from Canada, and steel rods imported from Europe, which were manufactured into boxes or cases by the petitioner in its factory at Bayonne, N. J., and were subsequently exported to foreign countries.

The court of claims made the following findings of fact:

'(1) During the years 1889, 1890, and 1891, the claimant was a corporation existing under the laws of New Jersey, organized in 1888, and having a factory for carrying on its business at Bayonne, in that state.

'(2) In 1889 and 1890 the claimant imported from Canada box shooks, and from Europe steel rods, upon which importation duties amounting in the aggregate to $39,636.20 were paid to the United States, of which sum $837.68 was paid on the importation of the steel rods.

'(3) The box shooks imported as set forth in finding 2 were manufactured in Canada from boards, first being planed, and then cut into required lengths and widths, intended to be sub-

Page 212

stantially correct for making into boxes, without further labor than nailing the shooks together. They were then tied up in bundles, of sides, of ends, of bottoms, and of tops, of from fifteen to twenty-five in a bundle, for convenience in handling and shipping.

'(4) The shooks so manufactured in Canada and imported into the United States as aforesaid were, at the claimant's factory, in Bayonne, N. J., constructed into the boxes or cases, set forth in Exhibit E to the petition herein, by nailing the same together with nails manufactured in the United States out of the steel rods imported as aforesaid, and by trimming, when defective in length or width, to make the boxes or cases without projecting parts; i. e. the shooks were imported in bundles, of ends, of sides, of tops, and of bottoms, each part coming in bundles separated from the bundles of other parts. From one of these bundles of ends the ends of a box are selected, to which the sides taken indiscriminately from any bundle of sides are nailed by nailing machines; then the sides are trimmed off even with the ends by saws; then, by bottoming machines, bottoms taken from any bundle of bottoms are nailed on; then the bottoms are trimmed even with the sides by saws; then, after being filled with cans, the tops are nailed on; and then the boxes or cases are ready for exportation.

'The cost of the labor expended in the United States in the necessary handling and in the nailing and trimming of the boxes as aforesaid was equal to about one-tenth of the value of the boxes.

'The principal part of the labor performed in trimming the boxes was occasioned by the Canadian manufacturer not cutting the shooks into the required lengths and widths for use in making the boxes, and for which the claimants sometimes charged the cost of such trimming to the Canadian manufacturer.

'(5) The boxes or cases made as aforesaid were exported from the United States to foreign countries, in conformity with the regulations of the treasury department then in force, to wit, treasury regulations of 1884 (sections 966, 967, and 968), hereinafter set out, relating to drawbacks upon the exporta-

Page 213

tion of articles wholly manufactured of imported materials, and cases so manufactured were entered for such drawback upon the exportation thereof.

'(6) For about four years prior to July 31, 1889, the treasury department had allowed and paid a drawback upon the exportation of boxes made from imported shooks fastened together with nails made from imported steel rods as aforesaid; and the treasury department was requested to pay the drawback on the exportation of the boxes or cases set forth in Exhibit E to the petition, but refused, for the reasons set forth in the following communication addressed to the collector of customs at New York:

"Treasury Department, July 31, 1889.

"Sir: Referring to department letter of March 2, 1885, addressed to the then collector at your port, n which a rate of drawback was established on shooks used in the manufacture of boxes, you are informed that the department has recently given the matter further consideration; and it appears, upon investigation, that the boxes are made complete in Canada, with the exception of nailing, and that the only manufacture which they receive in this country consists in their thus being nailed together, which part of the labor is omitted to be done in Canada merely for convenience in shipping to the United States.

"The boxes appear to have been manufactured complete abroad, and, in the condition imported, resemble the finished furniture imported in pieces, which the department has heretofore held to be dutiable at the rate applicable to finished furniture. See Synopsis, 4272.

"The simple act of nailing them together is not, in the opinion of the department, a manufacture, within the meaning of section 3019, Revised Statutes, and the authority to allow drawback thereon is hereby revoked.

"You will accordingly receive no further entries for drawback in such cases.

"Respectfully, yours,

"George C. Tichnor,

"Assistant Secretary.

"Collector of Customs, New York.'

Page 214

'(7) The treasury regulations of 1884, referred to in finding 5 (viz. articles 966, 967, and 968), are as follows:

"Art. 966. On articles wholly manufactured of imported materials on which duties have been paid, a drawback is to be allowed, on exportation, equal in amount to the duty paid on such imported materials, less 10 per cent. thereof, except on exportations of refined sugars, in which case the legal retention is 1 per cent.

"Art. 967. The entry in such cases will be as follows, and must be filed with the collector at least six hours before putting or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-56. Court No. 02-00737.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 27, 2008
    ...in foreign markets with the same articles manufactured in other countries." Id. at 1364 (quoting Tide-Water Oil Co. v. United States. 171 U.S. 210, 216, 18 S.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139 (1898)). The Court of Appeals confirmed that "[t]hese objectives survive in the present embodiment of the drawb......
  • Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. George Lueders & Co., 2539.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1915
    ...modern decision has been to appreciably expand the formerly prevailing definition of 'manufacture.' In Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U.S. 210, 216, 18 Sup.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139, Mr. Justice Brown, in applying the term 'manufacture' in a tariff drawback case, said that the word 'is......
  • Milton S. Kronheim & Co., Inc. v. District of Columbia, Nos. 95-7053
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 9, 1996
    ...Co. v. William Wharton Jr. & Co., 152 U.S. 252, 14 S.Ct. 608, 38 L.Ed. 429 (1894) (appellate "re-examination" not necessary); Hubbell, 171 U.S. at 210, 18 S.Ct. at 831; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 189-90, 67 S.Ct. 657, 660-61, 91 L.Ed. 832 (1947); Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moit......
  • In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • June 16, 1913
    ...into a new form, capable of being used, and designed to be used, in ordinary life.' And in the case of Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U.S. 210, 18 Sup.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139, Mr. Justice Brown said: 'The primary meaning of the word 'manufacture' is something made by hand, as disting......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-56. Court No. 02-00737.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 27, 2008
    ...in foreign markets with the same articles manufactured in other countries." Id. at 1364 (quoting Tide-Water Oil Co. v. United States. 171 U.S. 210, 216, 18 S.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139 (1898)). The Court of Appeals confirmed that "[t]hese objectives survive in the present embodiment of the drawb......
  • Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. George Lueders & Co., 2539.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1915
    ...modern decision has been to appreciably expand the formerly prevailing definition of 'manufacture.' In Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U.S. 210, 216, 18 Sup.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139, Mr. Justice Brown, in applying the term 'manufacture' in a tariff drawback case, said that the word 'is......
  • Milton S. Kronheim & Co., Inc. v. District of Columbia, Nos. 95-7053
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 9, 1996
    ...Co. v. William Wharton Jr. & Co., 152 U.S. 252, 14 S.Ct. 608, 38 L.Ed. 429 (1894) (appellate "re-examination" not necessary); Hubbell, 171 U.S. at 210, 18 S.Ct. at 831; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 189-90, 67 S.Ct. 657, 660-61, 91 L.Ed. 832 (1947); Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moit......
  • In re I. Rheinstrom & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • June 16, 1913
    ...into a new form, capable of being used, and designed to be used, in ordinary life.' And in the case of Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U.S. 210, 18 Sup.Ct. 837, 43 L.Ed. 139, Mr. Justice Brown said: 'The primary meaning of the word 'manufacture' is something made by hand, as disting......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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