Worthington v. Robbins

Citations

• 139 U.S. 337
• 11 S. Ct. 581
• 35 L. Ed. 181
• 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2387

Syllabus

<p>“ White hard enamel,” imported in 1884, and used for various purposes when a smooth or enamelled surface was desired, including the making of faces or surfaces of watch dials, the form or condition of it, as imported, affording-no indication of the use to which it was to be applied, and it requiring to be ground or pulverized, and new processes of manufacture to be applied before it could be made of any practical use, the article in this case having been imported for use in making watch dials, and having been in fact so used, was subject to a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, under § 2513 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by § 6 of the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, as an article manufactured in whole or in part, not therein enumerated or provided for, and not to a duty of 25 per cent ad valorem, as “ watch materials,” not specially enumerated or provided for in the act, under schedule N of § 2502 of the Revised Statutes, as enacted by the same § 6.</p> <p>In order to be dutiable as “ watch materials,” the article, when importen, must be in such form of manufacture as to show its adaptation to the making of watches.</p> <p>The case of Elgin Watch Co. v. Spalding, 19 Fed. Rep. 411, distinguished.</p>