Case Name: UNITED STATES v. COLBY & CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1907-03-26
Citations: 153 F. 883
Docket Number: No. 233 (3,967)
Parties: UNITED STATES v. COLBY & CO.
Judges: Before I,ACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 883–883

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. COLBY & CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 26, 1907.)
No. 233 (3,967).
Customs Duties — Classification—Ntgee Om — Soap Stock.
Niger-seed oil, which, wixile used in soap making, can he used for other purposes, though without the proper qualities for such purposes, is within the provision in Tariff Act Jnly 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 568. 30 Stat. 151 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1684], for oils “commonly used in soap making, * * * fit only for such use.”
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
In the decision below the Circuit Court reversed a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (G. A. 5,954; T. D. 26,109), which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
The opinion of Wheeler, District Judge, in the Circuit Court reads as follows:
This is an oil expressed from uiger seed, and comes under paragraph 3 of the act of 1897 (Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 15J [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627]), where it was assessed, unless it is “commonly used in soap making” and is “fit only for such use,” under paragraph 568, § 2, Free List, 30 Stilt. 198 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1684|. The Board found that it was scarcely known in this country, and failed to find that it was commonly used in soap making, and found that it is fit for other uses, apparently as a lubricant, an illuminant, and an adulterant of other oils, and affirmed the assessment. The evidence taken in this court shows that it is commonly used in soap making in this country, and that it can be used for these other purposes. But that is not the true test. The question is whether it is fit for other uses, and it does not appear to be. It would have to bo refined for an adulterant, is too sticky for a lubricant, and too gummy for an illuminant.
Decision reversed.
D. Frank Lloyd. Asst. U. S. Atty.
Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for' importers.
Before I,ACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Decision affirmed, upon opinion of the Circuit Court.