Case ID: f_116/html/0911-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROCHE v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    May 13, 1902.)
    No. 2,978.
    1. Taeiet Duties—Pickled Limes.
    Pickled limes, not being vegetables, are not dutiable under Tariff Act 1897, par. 241, providing for all vegetables, including pickles; nor are they exempt under paragraph 559, providing for fruits, green, ripe, or dried, and fruits in brine, not specifically provided for; but are dutiable under paragraph 266, providing for oranges, lemons, limes, grape fruit, shaddocks, or pomelos.
    Appeal by James W. Roche from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers, which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    The following is the opinion of the board of general appraisers in Re Thompson, which was followed by the board in the case at bar:
    The goods are pickled limes. They were assessed for duty at 40 per cent., under paragraph 241, Act 1897, and are claimed to be exempt from duty under paragraph 559. Paragraph 241 provides for “all vegetables, prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces.” Paragraph 559 reads: “Fruits or berries, green, ripe, or dried, and fruits in brine, not specially provided for in this act.” Limes are not vegetables, and limes preserved in brine are not known as pickles. Between the two paragraphs the importer’s claim would be well founded, but paragraph 266 provides for “oranges, lemons, limes, grape fruit, shaddocks or pomelos, one cent per pound.” This is a more specific designation than that in paragraph 559, for fruits, green, ripe, dried, Or in brine, not specially provided for. We hold that the goods were dutiable under paragraph 266, and the protest, therefore, must be overruled.
    Howard T. Walden, for importer.
    D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed, for the reason that paragraph 559 of the tariff act of 1897 is expressly not applicable to fruits specially provided for in the act, and, on the contrary, paragraph 266 is not qualified by any such language.