Case Name: KLIPSTEIN et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1899-01-27
Citations: 94 F. 356
Docket Number: No. 2,572
Parties: KLIPSTEIN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 94
Pages: 356–356

Head Matter:
KLIPSTEIN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 27, 1899.)
No. 2,572.
Custom's Duties — Classification—Alizarine Violet.
Alizarine violet, known as “alizarine cyanine R” was entitled to free entry as an alizarine color or dye, under paragraph 368 of the act of 1894, and was not dutiable as a coal-tar product, under paragraph 14 of said act.
This was an application for a review of a decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for duty of a certain color or dye known as “alizarine violet.” The evidence showed that the merchandise was commercially known as an artificial alizarine color or dye, first imported in October, 1894; and that it was a product of alizarine Bordeaux, which is a product of the oxidation of alizarine. The merchandise was classified by the collector, and by the board of general appraisers on appeal, as a coal-tar product, at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 14 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894.
Edward Hartley, for appellants.
James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
This importation was called "aliz-arine violet," and appears to have been known as "alizarine cyanine R." The question about it is whether it is a coal-tar, or an aliz-arine, color or dye. The decision heretofore filed was made upon the testimony of one of the importers taken before the board, without that of the same witness taken in this court, which had not been sent. That testimony indicated that it was a coal-tar color with some doubt, arising somewhat, perhaps, from the fact that artificial alizarine is produced from anthracene, which is a coal-tar product. Cochrane v. Soda Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 Sup. Ct. 455. The decision of the board upon that evidence was followed. The testimony taken in this court, considered with, and notwithstanding, that given before, seems to show fairly that it is, and was known as, an artificial alizarine color or dye. This leads to an opposite conclusion from that reached before. Affirmance set aside, and decision reversed.