Case Name: ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1896-02-07
Citations: 71 F. 957
Docket Number: No. 1,577
Parties: ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 71
Pages: 957–958

Head Matter:
ROESSLER & HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 7, 1896.)
No. 1,577.
Customs Dutiks — Classification--Aoetanilid.
Aeetanilid. which is a “preparation of coal tar, not a color or dye,” was dutiable by that description, under paragraph 19 of the act of 1890; and. even though it be conceded to be a medicinal preparation, without any alcoholic element, It was not dutiable under paragraph 75, for the former description is the moré specific:.
Appeal by the importers from a decision of the board of general appraisers which affirmed the classification of the collector upon the merchandise in question.
Albert Comstock, for plaintiffs.
J. T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
COXE, District Judge
(orally). The article imported in this case is acetanilid. The collector levied duty on one importation as a "medicinal preparation, of which alcohol is not a component part," and on another as a "chemical compound or salt," under paragraphs 75 and 76, respectively. The importer protested, insisting that in both instances it should have been classified under paragraph 19, which provides for "all preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes." It is conceded that the article in question is a coal-tar preparation, not a color or dye. The importer also insists that the evidence establishes the fact that it is not a medicinal preparation. Without passing upon the question of fact thus presented, the court holds as matter of law, conceding the proposition that it is a medicinal preparation, that the paragraph pointed out by the importer is more specific than the collector's paragraph, and, therefore, that the importations should have been admitted as a preparation of coal tar. Numerous decisions of this court uphold -this construction. This conclusion leads to a reversal of the decision of the board of general appraisers.