Case ID: f_107/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TOWNSEND, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RUSSMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    December 21, 1900.)
    No. 2,794.
    Customs Duties — Dentifrice.
    A dentifrice is properly assessed for duty under Act 1897, par. 2, as a toilet preparation in which alcohol is used, at 60 cents a pound, and 45 per cent ad valorem.
    Appeal by the Importers from a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    Stephen G. Clarke, for Importers.
    Chas. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The merchandise in question is a dentifrice. Congress prior to 1897 had always included dentifrices in the same paragraph with the term “toilet preparations.” In the act' of 1897 it used the term “toilet preparations” as a class to cover the various other articles, such as dentifrices, which had been specifically enumerated in.prior tariff acts. The merchandise herein was assessed for duty, under paragraph 2 of said act, as a “toilet preparation in which alcohol is used,” at 60 cents a pound and 45 per cent, ad valorem; and the importer protested, claiming that it was dutiable at 55 cents per pound, as a “medicinal preparation in which alcohol is used,” under the provisions of paragraph 67 of said act. While the evidence is insufficient to show that this is in fact a medicinal preparation, it abundantly supports the finding of the board that it is a toilet preparation; and their decision affirming the classification of the collector of customs is therefore affirmed.