Case Name: KRAUT v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-02-15
Citations: 139 F. 94
Docket Number: No. 3,515
Parties: KRAUT v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 139
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
KRAUT v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 15, 1905.)
No. 3,515.
Customs Duties — Classification—Dried Mushrooms — Vegetables.
The provision in paragraph 241, Schedule <3, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 170 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1649], for mushrooms “prepared or preserved,” does not include mushrooms dried merely by evaporation, which are dutiable under paragraph 257 of said act, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], as “vegetables in their natural state.”
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
For decision below, see G. A. 5,599, T. D. 25,065, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on merchandise imported by Herman Kraut, and overruled the importer’s contention that the goods should have been classified under the provision in paragraph 257, Schedule G, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 17Í [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650], for “vegetables in their natural state, not specially provided for.”
James W. Purdy, for plaintiff.
D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
This importation is of mushrooms dried merely by evaporation of the sap. They have been assessed as mushrooms "prepared or preserved," under paragraph 241 of the act of July 24,1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 170 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1649]. The effect of such evaporation upon the nature of grown products was fully considered by Judge Blatchford in Frazee v. Moffitt, 20 Blatchf. 267, 18 Fed. 584, with reference to making hay. The conclusion was reached upon very satisfactory reasoning that the nature of the grass was not changed, but remained the same. Dry wood is merely wood, not prepared wood or preserved wood. There is a difference between slicing and kiln drying, as in Petry v. United States (C. C.) 99 Fed. 261, and mere evaporation, as here. The practice of the customs department seems to have been in accordance with this view under similar provisions till lately, and long enough to attract the attention of the lawmaking power if not agreeable.
Decision reversed.
Extract from Order.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there was error in said proceedings before said United States Board of General Appraisers, and that their decision therein be and the sam'e is in all respects reversed, and that said merchandise is liable to duty only under paragraph 257 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 1650].