General
PHAIR et al. v. UNITED STATES; SCHROEDER v. SAME. MERCK et al. v. SAME
105 F. 508·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1900
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
PHAIR et al. v. UNITED STATES. SCHROEDER v. SAME. MERCK et al. v. SAME.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
May 24, 1900.)
Nos. 2,923, 2,950, and 2,922.
Customs Duties — Classification—Chloral Hydrate.
Chloral hydrate and salol are dutiable under paragraph 68 of the tariff act of 1897, as medicinal preparations in the preparation of which alcohol 'is not used, not specially provided for, and not under paragraph 67, as medicinal preparations in the preparation of which alcohol is used, not specially provided for; alcohol not being necessarily used in their preparation.
Appeals by the Importers from Decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.
Albert Comstock, for importers.
Ohas. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
[MAJORITY — TOWNSEND, District Judge]
TOWNSEND, District Judge
(orally). The articles in question are chloral hydrate and salol, and were assessed for duty under paragraph 67 of the act of 1897 at 55 cents a pound, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is used, not specially provided for.” The importers claimed in their protests that they were dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 68 of said act, as “medicinal preparations, in the preparation of which alcohol is not used, not specially provided for.” In view of the decisions in U. S. v. Battle, 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141, Schering v. U. S. (No. 2,137), and Engelhorn v. Same (No. 1,237), I feel obliged to reverse the decision of the board of general appraisers.