United States v. Aetna Explosives Co, 296

• Decision Date: 16 May 1921
• Docket Number: No. 296,296
• Citation: 41 S.Ct. 513,65 L.Ed. 1013,256 U.S. 402
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. AETNA EXPLOSIVES CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

256 U.S. 402

41 S.Ct. 513

65 L.Ed. 1013

UNITED STATES

v AETNA EXPLOSIVES CO.

No. 296.

Argued April 27 and 28, 1921.

Decided May 16, 1921.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hanson for the United States.

Mr. Addison S. Pratt, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A writ of certiorari to the Court of Customs Appeals was granted (253 U. S. 481, 40 Sup. Ct. 483, 64 L. Ed. 1023) under the Act of August 22, 1914 (chapter 267, 38 Stats. 703 [Comp. St. § 1186]). AEtna Explosives Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. App. 298.

The question presented is whether the imports came within paragraph 387 of the free list, Tariff Act of 1913 (chapter 16, 38 Stats. 114), which provides:

'Acids: Acetic or pyroligneous, arsenic or arsenious, carbolic, chromic, fluoric, hydrofluoric, hydrochloric or muriatic, nitric, phosphoric, phthalic, prussic, silicic, sulphuric or oil of vitriol, and valerianic'

—or was dutiable under paragraph 5:

'Alkalies, alkaloids, and all chemical and medicinal compounds, preparations, mixtures and salts, and combinations thereof not specially provided for in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.'

The imported merchandise was nitric acid, to which approximately 20 per cent. by weight and 5 per cent. according to value of sulphuric acid had been added for the sole purpose of preventing corrosion of steel tank cars essential for transportation of the former acid in large quantities. That the addition of sulphuric acid prevents nitric acid from attacking steel is a well-known fact concerning which there is no very satisfactory explanation. The court below found the sulphuric acid was added solely for transportation purposes, and that the result was not a mixture merchantable as such for use in the United States. It accordingly held that no duty should have been damanded and among other things said:

'The word 'preparations' [in paragraph 5] implies of course that they are something prepared and adapted to particular uses or services. It is no stretch to say that the word 'mixtures' as here employed was used in a similar sense to import mixtures susceptible of commercial use as they exist, or are at least such as are purposely started on their way toward adaption to such use. While not resting this case solely upon this view, it certainly would appeal with great force were it the only consideration involved.'

'The testimony fairly tends to show that as a commercial proposition there is only one practical means of transporting strong nitric acid such as that involved in the present importation in quantities sufficient to meet the current demand, and that is to mix it with a sufficient amount of sulphuric acid and ship it in tank cars or drums.'

'It is evident that the importer sought to introduce nitric acid and had no desire to import sulphuric acid, or nitric and sulphuric acid as a usable mixture. This small percentage of...