Case Name: SMITH et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-12-09
Citations: 84 F. 158
Docket Number: No. 2,357
Parties: SMITH et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 84
Pages: 158–158

Head Matter:
SMITH et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 9, 1897.)
No. 2,357.
Customs Duties — Classification—Crocus.
Crocus, which is a color, but is most largely used as a polishing powder, was dutiable as a color, under paragraph 01 of the act of 1890, under the words, “all other paints and colors, whether dry or mixed,” and not under paragraph 133 and section 5, as dross residuum from burnt pyrites, or as a nonenumerated article under section 4.
This was an appeal by Smith & Oo. from a decision of the board of general appraisers as to the classification for duty of certain imported merchandise. The importation was described by the board of general appraisers as follows:
“The merchandise is crocus. It was assessed for duty as a color at 25 per cent., under paragraph 61, Act Oct. 1890, and is claimed to be dutiable either at 75 cents per ton, under paragraph 133 and section 5, as dross or residuum from burnt pyrites, or at 20 per cent., as a nonenumerated article, under section 4. It appears from the testimony that thé residuum from burnt pyrites is valued at about 6 or 7 to 16 shillings a ton. By the application of labor, and at an expense of 20 or 30 shillings a ton, this residuum is converted into crocus, a new article, having a distinctive name, character, and use. It also appears from the evidence introduced by the importer that crocus is used to the extent of about 80 per cent as a polishing powder and 20 per cent, as a color.”
The board further said:
“Both claims are made under the clauses for nonenumerated articles. If it were necessary to apply the similitude clause, it would seem that crocus should be classified as a color, rather than as the residuum of burnt pyrites. But, as it is suitable for use, and is largely used, as a color, there is no necessity to apply the similitude clause. We find: (11 The article is a polishing product; (2) it is a color. As colors are enumerated, we overrule the elaim that the merchandise is dutiable under section 4 or section 5.”
Everit Brown, for appellants.
Henry O. Platt, Asst. 17. S. A tty.

Opinion:
WHEELER, District Judge.
This article — crocus—is found to be, and in fact is, a color, although it is much more largely used as a polishing powder. Paragraph 61 of the act of 1890, which comes after several paragraphs as to colors, lays a duty on "all other paints and colors, whether dry or mixed," etc., without reference to being any otherwise provided for; and this article is not by name otherwise provided for. This duty is therefore directly applied to this article, without regard to its other uses. Decision affirmed.