Legal Opinion

Beadleston v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided July 13, 1899PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Suit to Recover Drawbacks on Imported Articles Re-exported.

1Opinion of the Court

DROWN, District Judge.

The question is, are the bottle, the cork and the tin foil “materials” “used in the manufacture” of the “article” exported? The article is labeled “Imperial Beer Brewed Specially for Export- — Gold Label,” etc. Mere cases or coverings are not deemed a part of the “article exported,” and do not enter into its “manufacture.” Notwithstanding the evidence as to steaming, I think on full consideration that the “article” is essentially the beer, without reference to the bottle; that the bottle is not 'a material part of the identity of the beer or of its quality or marketable…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wheeler v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1896

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. James v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. James v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API