TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States

Shing v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. 16 (C.C.P.A. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
June 22, 1910
Docket
No. 16
Judges
Barber, Hunt, Montgomery, Smith, Vries
Citations
1 Ct. Cust. 161910 CCPA LEXIS 61910 WL 20677
Disposition
[Affirmed.]
Headnotes
Duck Meat, Prepared — Poultry. The meat of ducks, salted, dried, and'packed in tins, with or without peanut oil, is dutiable not as poultry dressed, nor as a nonenumerated raw or unmanufactured article, but under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, as meats prepared or preserved, and not specially provided for.
Summary
Transferred from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 30166).

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Smith, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals from a decision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York affirming a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which appeal, under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, has been certified to this court for determination.

The appeal raises the question as to whether the flesh of ducks salted, dried, packed in tins, and in some instances packed in peanut oil, is assessable for duty at 25 per cent ad valorem as prepared or preserved meats under paragraph 275, as decided by the Board of General Appraisers and the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, or at 5 cents per pound as “poultry dressed” under paragraph 278, or at 10 per cent ad valorem as a nonenumerated raw or unmanufactured article, under section 6 of the tariff act of 1897, as contended by the importer.

From the evidence it appears that the ducks are killed in China; that after removing the feathers, head, feet, and entrails that part of the duck which remains is, either as a whole or in pieces, salted and *17 dried in the sun. After being dried the meat is packed in tins, sometimes in peanut oil and sometimes without it. The object and purpose of salting and drying the meat, and also of packing it in oil, is tO’ preserve it, or, as one of the importer’s witnesses testifies, "to keep it in good condition for a long time.”

The sample of the merchandise submitted to the Board of General Appraisers was not put up in oil, yet it was in a state of preservation, although at the time it was submitted it had been out of the tin in which it was originally packed for four or five weeks. This would seem to indicate that the salting and sun drying of the duck had effected something more than its mere temporary preservation for transit. The sample submitted during the oral argument on appeal strengthens and confirms our opinion that ducks’ flesh, salted and sun dried, as was that sample, is perfectly preserved, and so prepared will keep indefinitely. Every competent witness who testified on the subject agrees that ducks dressed, drawn, salted, and dried as above described would not pass in the trade or be accepted by it in the course of business as "poultry dressed.”

The merchandise clearly and unmistakably comes within the category of "meats prepared or preserved and not specially provided for,” and was properly assessed for duty at 25 per cent ad valorem.

The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1915: 11921: 11925: 11935: 11943: 21949: 119152026peak 1943 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nootka Packing Co. v. United States22 C.C.P.A. 464 (C.C.P.A. 1935)
  2. United States v. General Hide & Skin Corp.11 Ct. Cust. 78 (C.C.P.A. 1921)
  3. United States v. Weber6 Ct. Cust. 234 (C.C.P.A. 1915)
  4. Obrecht v. United States10 Cust. Ct. 127 (Cust. Ct. 1943)
  5. United States v. Conkey12 Ct. Cust. 552 (C.C.P.A. 1925)
  6. Dutch Cheese Importers Co. v. United States23 Cust. Ct. 98 (Cust. Ct. 1949)

Most recent

  1. Dutch Cheese Importers Co. v. United States23 Cust. Ct. 98 (Cust. Ct. 1949)
  2. Edenfruit Products Co. v. United States10 Cust. Ct. 134 (Cust. Ct. 1943)
  3. Obrecht v. United States10 Cust. Ct. 127 (Cust. Ct. 1943)
  4. Nootka Packing Co. v. United States22 C.C.P.A. 464 (C.C.P.A. 1935)
  5. United States v. Conkey12 Ct. Cust. 552 (C.C.P.A. 1925)
  6. United States v. General Hide & Skin Corp.11 Ct. Cust. 78 (C.C.P.A. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list