Case ID: f_104/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DROWN, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BEADLESTON et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    (District Court, S. D. New York.
    July 13, 1899.)
    Customs Ditties — Drawbacks—Bkkr Bottles.
    Imported bottles, corks, and tin foil re-exported as eases or coverings for beer made in this country are not “materials ⅜ * * used in the manufacture of articles manufactured or produced in the United States,” within the meaning of section 25 ofr the tariff act of 1890, and the exporter is not entitled to a drawback of the duties paid thereon under said section.
    Suit to Recover Drawbacks on Imported Articles Re-exported.
    Stephen G. Clarke, for petitioner.
    Arthur M. King, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   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 identity as beer, but only a convenient case for offering it to the public in a specific recognizable form, which serves no other essential use. As such I think the bottles, corks, etc., are not entitled to a drawback under the act of October 1, 1890. Wheeler v. U. S. (D. C.) 75 Fed. 654.

Judgment for defendant.