Selbach v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
This was an application by E. Selbach & Co. for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers, affirming the decision of the collector of the port of New York as to the classification of certain merchandise. The merchandise in question was invoiced as “alizarine blue,” “anthracene brown,” and “anthracene yellow.” The collector assessed duty thereon at 3a per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 82 of the tariff act of 1883, as coal-tar colors.
Read the full summary
This was an application by E. Selbach & Co. for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers, affirming the decision of the collector of the port of New York as to the classification of certain merchandise. The merchandise in question was invoiced as “alizarine blue,” “anthracene brown,” and “anthracene yellow.” The collector assessed duty thereon at 3a per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 82 of the tariff act of 1883, as coal-tar colors. The importers’ protest claimed that the merchandise was entitled to free entry, as alizarine, natural or artificial.
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, District Judge
(orally). The merchandise In question is anthracene or alizarine yellow, claimed to be free, as alizarine, *804natural or artificial, under paragraph 595 of the tariff act of March 3, 1885, hut assessed for duty under paragraph 82 of said act as a coal-tar color or dye, by whatever name known, not specially provided for. That this article is not chemically alizarine seems to be immaterial. The evidence is undisputed that it responds to the alizarine tests, and was commercially known and dealt in as “aliz-arine” or “alizarine yellow” at the time of the passage of said act. The decision of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. SehlbachCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
- Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1900