Case Name: RUSSMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-12-21
Citations: 107 F. 266
Docket Number: No. 2,794
Parties: RUSSMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 107
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
RUSSMAN et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 21, 1900.)
No. 2,794.
Customs Duties — Dentifrice.
A dentifrice is properly assessed for duty under Act 1897, par. 2, as a toilet preparation in which alcohol is used, at 60 cents a pound, and 45 per cent ad valorem.
Appeal by the Importers from a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers.
Stephen G. Clarke, for Importers.
Chas. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, District Judge.
The merchandise in question is a dentifrice. Congress prior to 1897 had always included dentifrices in the same paragraph with the term "toilet preparations." In the act' of 1897 it used the term "toilet preparations" as a class to cover the various other articles, such as dentifrices, which had been specifically enumerated in.prior tariff acts. The merchandise herein was assessed for duty, under paragraph 2 of said act, as a "toilet preparation in which alcohol is used," at 60 cents a pound and 45 per cent, ad valorem; and the importer protested, claiming that it was dutiable at 55 cents per pound, as a "medicinal preparation in which alcohol is used," under the provisions of paragraph 67 of said act. While the evidence is insufficient to show that this is in fact a medicinal preparation, it abundantly supports the finding of the board that it is a toilet preparation; and their decision affirming the classification of the collector of customs is therefore affirmed.