LATIMER
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tobacco scraps swept from factory floors and used to manufacture cheap cigarettes were classified for tariff purposes as unmanufactured tobacco subject to a duty of 55 cents per pound, rather than as waste subject to a 10 percent ad valorem duty. The Supreme Court affirmed this classification, holding that because the scrap retained the name and quality of tobacco and was used in tobacco manufacturing, it fell under the tariff provision covering tobacco in all its forms, and that Congress intended the same construction of "unmanufactured tobacco" from an earlier tariff act to apply to the 1897 statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court.
In the process of manufacturing and handling tobacco small pieces are broken, from the brittle leaves, and fall to the floor of the warehouse or factory. These scraps are not treated as worthless, but are swept up, and, when cleaned, are used in the manufacture of a cheap grade of cigarettes and stogies.
The plaintiff in error shipped to Porto Rico a quantity of these sweepings, and the question arose as to whether the shipment was dutiable at 10 per cent, ad valorem as “waste, not specially provided for in this Act,” under § 463 of the Tariff Act of 1897; or, at 55 cents a pound as “tobacco,- manufactured or unmanufactured,” under § 215 of the same statute. (30 Stat. 194, 169.) The customs officer classed it as “unmanufactured tobacco,” and required the payment of a duty of 55 cents a pound. The importer protested and a case was made to test the question. On appeal the General Board sustained the collector. It was affirmed by the District Court of Porto Rico, and to reverse that judgment the importer has brought the casé here.
There has been some difference of opinion as to the proper classification of scrap 'tobacco under the various tariff acts. In United States v. Schroeder, 93 Fed. Rep. 448, a higher grade of scrap was held to be “waste” within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1890. In Seeberger v. Castro, 153 U. S. 32, it was decided that the clippings from the ends of cigars weré' dutiable as unmanufactured tobacco under the .Tariff Act of 1883. • The plaintiff claims that this decision has no application here, because it related to clippings which were of a higher grade than scrap, and for the further reason that, as the importer there made no claim that it should be taxed as waste, the court did not pass on that question. But it' did definitely decide that such material, by whatever name called, was “unmanufactured tobacco.”
The words', having received such a construction under the act of 1883, must be given the same meaning when used in the Tariff Act of 1897, on the theory that, in using the phrase in the later statute, Congress adopted the construction already given it by this court. United States v. Baruch, this day decided, ante, p. 191. That such was the intention of Congress appears further from the fact that the duty of “10 per cent, ad valorem on waste” is found in “Schedule N — Sundries.” The word as thus used generally refers to remnants and by-products of small value that have not the quality or utility either of the finished product or of the raw material. Patton v. United States, 159 U. S. 500, 503. But the scrap here involved retains the name and quality of tobacco. It is tobacco, and as such it is used for making cigarettes and stogies. It was therefore taxable under Schedule F, which fixes the duty on tobacco in all its forms — manufactured or unmanufactured. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hecht v. Malley, 265 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1924)…opting the language used in an earlier act, Congress must be considered to have adopted also the construction given by this Court to such language, and made it a part of the enactment. Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 43; Latimer v. United States, 223 U. S. 501, 504. And here the legislative history of the excise tax provision of the Act of 1916, and the marked contrast between its language and that of the income tax provision of the same Act, plainly show, aside from this rule of statutory construction, t…
-
United States v. Ritterman, 273 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1927)
-
Meer v. United States, 235 F.2d 65 (10th Cir. 1956)…2 F. 676, and In re Logan, D.C.Ky., 102 F. 876; Cameron v. United States, 231 U.S. 710, 719, 34 S.Ct. 244, 58 L.Ed. 448, decided January 5, 1914. . Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 221, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 97 L.Ed. 1557; Latimer v. United States, 223 U.S. 501, 504, 32 S.Ct. 242, 56 L.Ed. 526; Hecht v. Malley, 265 U.S. 144, 153, 44 S.Ct. 462, 68 L.Ed. 949; United States v. Ryan, 284 U.S. 167, 175, 52 S.Ct. 65, 76 L.Ed. 224; Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5, 14, 613, 616, 59 S.Ct. 675,…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1891)
- Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1887)
- Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1892)
- Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1891)
- Patton v. United States, 159 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1895)
- Seeberger v. Castro, 153 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1894)