UNITED STATES
v.
ÆTNA EXPLOSIVES COMPANY
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.
The Supreme Court resolved a tariff classification dispute concerning imported nitric acid to which approximately 20 percent sulphuric acid had been added solely to prevent corrosion during transport in steel tank cars. The Court affirmed that the mixture qualified for duty-free entry under the tariff provision covering acids rather than being classified as a dutiable chemical preparation, holding that the addition of sulphuric acid was an act of shipment rather than the creation of a commercial mixture and did not constitute a chemical combination within the statute's contemplation. The decision established that incidental admixtures added merely to facilitate safe transportation, which do not result in a product adapted for actual commercial use, do not alter the tariff classification of the primary imported good.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
A writ of certiorari to the Court of Customs Appeals was granted under the Act of August 22, 1914, c. 267, 38 Stat. 703. 9 Cust. App. Rep. 298.
The question presented is whether the imports came within paragraph 387 of the: free list, Tariff Act of 1913, c. 16', 38 Stat. 114, which provides—
“Acids: Acetic or pyroligneous, arsenic or arsenious, carbolic, chromic, fluoric, hydrofluoric, hydrochloric or muriatic, nitric, phosphoric, phthalic, prussic, silicic, sulphuric or oil of vitriol, and valerianic; ” or was dutiable under paragraph 5—
“Alkalies; alkaloids, and all chemical and medicinal compounds, preparations, mixtures and salts, and combinations thereof not specially provided for in this section, 15 per centum ad valorem.”
The imported merchandise was nitric acid, to which approximately 20 per cent, by weight and .5 per cent, according to value of sulphuric acid had been added for the sole purpose of preventing corrosion of steel tank cars essential for transportation of the former acid in large quantities. - That the addition of sulphuric acid prevents nitric acid from attacking steel is a well known fact concerning which there is no very satisfactory explanation. The court below found the sulphuric acid was added solely for transportation purposes, and that the result was not a mixture merchantable as such for use in the United States. It accordingly held that no duty should have been demanded and among other things said: “The word ‘preparations.’ [in paragraph 5] implies of course that they are something prepared and adapted to particular uses or services. It is no stretch to say that the word ‘mixtures ’ as here employed was used in a similar sense to import mixtures susceptible of commercial use as they exist, or are at least such as are purposely started on their way toward adaptation to such use. While not. resting this case solely upon this view, it certainly would appeal with great force were it the only consideration involved.” “The testimony fairly tends to show that as a commercial proposition there is only one practical means of transporting strong nitric acid such as that involved in the present importation in quantities sufficient to meét the cúrrent demand, and that is to mix it with a sufficient amount 'of sulphuric acid aind ship it in tank cars or drums.” “It is evident that the importer sought to introduce nitric acid and had no desire to import sulphuric acid, or nitric and sulphuric acid as a usable mixture. This small percentage of sulphuric acid which was relatively insignificant in its money value was employed solely for the purpose of making it possible to ship the nitrie acid into tips country in usable quantities.. The result was not a mixture merchantable as such for use in the United States. . . . The merchandise had not reached the state of a commercial mixture contemplated by the statute. It was susceptible of no use other than as nitric acid, which must before use be again treated. The mixing of this xninimum amount of sulphuric acid should be treated as a means of and part of the shipment, and as an act as essential in the importation of nitric acid as woüld have been the proper packing, of glassware or other goods designed for shipment by rail.” “In the present case we are convinced that there was neither an advantage to the importer in adding the requisite amount of sulphuric acid tq admit of safe shipnjgnt of the nitric acid nor was. there' ány possible loss of revenue to the Government. The sole purpose . which this addition was made was to admit of shipmen It would be sticking in the bark to say that this was . such a mixture as the statute in question contemplates. It is not yet prepared. . It has not been advanced as a preparation for actual, use except, to the extent that a small portion of the requisite amount of sulphuric acid which when ¿dded in the proper quantity would result in making a mixture which was usable, is found in this tank instead of some .other.. The quantity is relative’y insignificant;-’ .“We .think that the. true rule is that the introduction of a quan.ti1¡y of. sulphuric acid solely for the purpose of rendering the transportation of nitric acid safe, and which does not result in a usable mixture, is more in the nature of an act /of shipment than an admixture and does not produce a substance which is dutiable under paragraph 5.”
We find no reason for disapproving the conclusion reached by the Court of Customs Appeals. The applicable tariff act granted free entry to both nitric and sulphuric acids, and, viewed practically, the commodity in question was nothing more than nitric acid rendered non-injurious to steel tanks by adding sulphuric acid of small value. The two acids do not interact and thé result was amere mechanical mixture not intended or adapted as such for commercial use and not.a chemical mixture within the. true intent of paragraph 5.
The judgment of the court below must be
Affirmed.
Me; Justice Day. took no part ip the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Ceabke dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carolene Prods. Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1944)…have been restored and that therefore the act is inapplicable to the enriched compounds within that rule of statutory construction, as illustrated by Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457; United States v. Aetna Explosives Co., 256 U. S. 402, and other cases, which excludes from the coverage of a statute things or situations which are beyond the legislative intent. Petitioners’ position as to the legislative purpose of the act was not accepted by the trial or reviewing court. We agree…
-
Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. The United States, 348 F.2d 475 (Ct. Cl. 1965)…ct constitute a limit or a condition upon the use of funds appropriated for the housing program and, therefore, that the government is not liable for any costs in excess of that statutory limit. Defendant cites Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575, 41 S.Ct. 513, 65 L.Ed. 1099 (1921); Curtis v. United States, 2 Ct.Cl. 144 (1866), and Shipman v. United States, 18 Ct.Cl. 138 (1883), but we do not believe that those decisions are dispositive of the case at bar. They involve the interpretation of particular app…
-
Amoco OIL Co. v. The United States, 749 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984)…eption and are unpersuaded by the legislative history cited by Dome in the Tariff Classification Study of 1960 to adopt a view contrary to the clearly expressed limits of the statute. . For example, in the United States v. Aetna Explosives Company, 256 U.S. 402, 41 S.Ct. 513, 65 L.Ed. 1013 (1921), the imported merchandise was nitric acid transported in steel tank cars. Since nitric acid is known to corrode steel, sulphuric acid was added to the nitric acid to prevent corrosion of the tank cars and permit t…