General
UNITED STATES v. McKESSON, ROBBINS & CO.; SAME v. MERCK & CO.
172 F. 168·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. McKESSON, ROBBINS & CO. SAME v. MERCK & CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
May 13, 1909.)
Nos. 5,342, 5,370.
Customs Duties (§ 24*) — Classification'—Powdered Opium — “Drug Advanced in Value or Condition.”
Powdered opium is a “drug advanced in value or condition,” within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par. 20, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628), rather than opium crude or unmanufactured, under paragraph 43, 30 Stat. 153 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1629).
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 24.*]
On Application for Review of Decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
The Board of Appraisers held that powdered opium imported at the port of New York had been improperly classified by the collector of customs at that port as opium crude or unmanufactured, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, par. 43, 30 Stat. 153 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1629), and sustained the importers’ contention that the article should have been classified as a drug advanced in value or condition under paragraph 20, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp St. 1901, p. 1628).
D. Frank Bloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Hatch & Clute (Walter F. Welch, of counsel), for McKesson & Robbins.
Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for Merck & Co.
[MAJORITY — PRATT, District Judge.]
PRATT, District Judge.
I agree with the Board of General Appraisers that the evidence in these cases does not differentiate the merchandise involved from that passed upon in Merck v. U. S., 151 Fed. 14, 80 C. C. A. 510.
Decisions affirmed.