Case ID: f_165/html/0186-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. F. A. MARSILY & CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    November 17, 1908.)
    No. 788 (1,923).
    1. Customs Duties (§ 38) — Products from Petroleum Originating Abroad-Following the Decisions op the Circuit Courts op Appeals in Other Circuits.
    Iu accordance with tbe practice in the First Circuit, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second. Circuit in United States v. R. F. Downing & Co., 146 Fed. 56, 76 C. O. A. 376, with reference to Tariff Act July 21, 1807, c. 11, § 2, J-Yoo Dint, par. «26, JO Slat. 190 (TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), as applied to the products of petroleum, followed.
    LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 38.]
    2. Courts (§ 96*) — Cojijty—Concurrence with Courts of Take Status.
    This Circuit Court of Appeals will ordinarily concur in the decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals in other circuits.
    [Ed. Note.' — 'For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 327; Dec. Dig. § 90.* i
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
    There was no opinion below. The Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had reversed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston.
    Tho article in controversy (paraffin) was made in Belgium from Russian petroleum. The latter country imposes a duty on both crude petroleum and its products when imported from the United States, while Belgium imposes a duty on neither oil nor product. Under these circumstances the collector assumed that the law (set forth in the opinion herein) did not permit the importation to escape countervailing duty entirely, and accordingly proceeded to impose on the paraffin in dispute a duty equal to that imposed by Russia on paraffin exiiorted from the United States.
    William H. Garland, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Asa P. French, U. S. Atty., on the brief).
    Walter F. Welch and Albert H. Washburn (Edward S. Hatch and Hatch & Clute, on the brief), for importers.
    Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § .number in Pec. & Am. Pigs. 11)07 to date, & ltep’r Indexes
    
    
      
       For otiier oases see same topic & § kttvbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & llep’v Indexes
      
    
   PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

This case depends upon the construction to be given to the following portions of paragraph 626, forming a part of the free list of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, Free List, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685):

“Provided, That if Diere ho imported into the United States crude petroleum, or the products of crudo petroleum produced in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or Us products exported from the United States, there shall in such casos be levied, paid, and collected a duty upon said crude petroleum or Us products sq imported equal to the duty imposed by such country.” 1

The importation in this case was what is designated as “liquid paraffin,” being one of the products of crude petroleum. The petroleum originated in Russia, and was shipped from Russia to Belgium, where it was advanced to the state of the importation in question. The Board of General Appraisers held that the case was governed by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Downing, 146 Fed. 56, 76 C. C. A. 376, and it was admitted that, so far as the questions before us are concerned, the essential facts are the same. The Circuit Court sustained this ruling, whereupon the United States appealed to us.

On examining the record, we find no reason why we should depart on this proceeding from the practice adopted by us, by virtue of which we ordinarily concur in the decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals in other circuits, as stated by us in Gill v. Austin, 157 Fed. 234, 235, 84 C. C. A. 677, in an opinion passed down November 21, 1907.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.