Junge v. Hedden
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. 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.
Read the full summary
At Law. Action to recover back customs duties. 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’…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, J.,
(orally, after stating the facts as above.) Descriptive terms applied to articles of commerce are of course to be understood according lo 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 *198“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,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- Gayer v. WhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- United States v. Julius Wile Bro. & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904