Case Name: WM. ROPES & CO. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-05-19
Citations: 123 F. 990
Docket Number: No. 2,834
Parties: WM. ROPES & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 123
Pages: 990–991

Head Matter:
WM. ROPES & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
May 19, 1900.)
No. 2,834.
1. Customs Duties—Classification—Albolene—Products of Petroleum.
The article known as “albolene,” consisting of a mechanical combination of paraffin, a petroleum product, and ceresia, a fossil wax, the paraffin constituting 80 per cent, of the article by weight, but only four-elevenths of its value, is not a product of petroleum, within the meaning of paragraph 626, Free List, § 2, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), providing for a countervailing duty on “products of petroleum produced in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States,” but is dutiable under paragraph 448, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677), as a manufacture of wax.
Appeal by the importers from a decision of the board of general appraisers which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs with' regard to the merchandise in question when imported at the port of New York.
Albert Comstock, for the importers.
Charles D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, District Judge
(orally). The merchandise in question is a mechanical combination of paraffin, which is a product of petroleum, and of ceresia, which is a fossil wax. Eighty per cent, in weight consists of paraffin, and 20 per cent, in weight of ceresia. Seven-elevenths of its value is wax, and four-elevenths is a product of petroleum. Its chief value, therefore, is wax; and, when thus combined with the petroleum product or paraffin, it constitutes a man ufacture of wax, which is known and sold as "albolene." The substance is imported from St. Petersburg. This manufacture of wax was assessed for duty at 1.70 rubles per pood, under the reciprocity proviso in paragraph 626, Free List, § 2, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), which provides that on "products of crude petroleum produced in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States," the duty here collected should be equal to the duty imposed by such country. There is no question that the duty is the same as that collected in Russia on products of crude petroleum imported from this country. The importer claims that the article is dutiable at 25 per cent, ad valorem, as a manufacture of wax, under paragraph 448, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1677). The decision of Judge Lacombe in Re Rosenstein (C. C.) 56 Fed. 624, affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in U. S. v. Rosenstein, 8 C. C. A. 474, 60 Fed. 74, supports the contention of the importers. It is clear that this manufactured article is not a product of petroleum, when only one-third of its value consists of a product of petroleum, and the rest consists of wax.
The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.