Case ID: f_113/html/1005-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COXE, District Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES v. LEHN et al.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    March 13, 1902.)
    No. 2,741.
    Customs Duties — Dulcin—Chemical Compound.
    Dulciu, being a chemical compound, is dutiable as such under Tariff Act 1897, par. 3, and not as saccharine, under paragraph 211, it being a distinct article, and of a different chemical composition, though similar to saccharine in character and use.
    Appeal by the United States from a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    Charles D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.
    Albert Comstock, for the importers.
   COXE, District Judge

(orally). The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed upon the opinion delivered by General Appraiser Wilkinson, which is as follows:

“The merchandise is dulcin. It was assessed for duty as saccharine at $1.50 per pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem under para graph 211 of the act of July, 1897, and is claimed to be dutiable as a chemical compound at 25 por cent, under paragraph 3. Saccharine and dulcin are both derived from coal tar, and are similar in appearance, character, and use; but each is a, distinct article, manufactured under a specific patent and of a different chemical composition. Saccharine is anliydro-ortho-sulphamin-benzoic acid, while dulcin is para-phenetol-carbamid. Dulcin might bo classified by similitude as saccharine but for its enumeration as a chemical compound. We find that it is a chemical compound, and sustain the protest. Reference is made to Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112, 24 L. Ed. 766.”