Case Name: ALART et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1894-04-19
Citations: 61 F. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALART et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
ALART et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
April 19, 1894.)
Customs Duties—Classification—Vegetables Packed in Salt—Act Oct. 1, ' 1890.
Cucumbers and cauliflower, packed in salt, held dutiable at 45 per cent, ad valorem, under paragrapli 287 of the act of October 1, 1890, as “vegetables * * *• prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces of all kinds,” and not at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 288 of said act, as “vegetables in their natural state not specially provided for.”
Appeal by Importers from Decision of Board of United States General Appraisers. G. A. 302, 1080.
Decision affirmed.
Certain vegetables, consisting of cucumbers and cauliflower packed in salt, in hogsheads, and imported into the port of New York in December, 1891, by Alart & McGuire, were assessed for duty by the collector of the port under paragraph 287, as above stated. The importers protested, claiming the merchandise was not “pickles,” nor “vegetables, prepared or preserved,” as known in trade and commerce, but that they were commercially known as “vegetables in their natural state,” and piroperly dutiable under paragraph 288; that they were packed in dry salt only for convenience and preservation during transportation. The Unified States attorney contended that the terms “prepared or preserved” were foot commercial terms, and had been judicially construed by the United States supreme court in Presson v. Iiussell (decided April 9,1894) 14 Sup. Ot. 728, jwhieh construction would cover and include the imported merchandise in sw'+ -
Stephen Greeley Clarke, for importers.
Henry O. Platt, U. S. Atty., for the United States.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, District Judge
(orally). The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed, under the decision of the United States supreme court in the case of Presson v. Russell, 14 Sup. Ct. 728, which seems to be decisive of the question.