Komada Company v. United States

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. The question is the proper classification, under the tariff act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. at L. 151, chap. 11, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 1626), of a Japanese beverage Known as 'sake.' 'Sake' is not named in that act, but § 7 (p. 205), frequently spoken of as 'the similitude section,' reads as follows:

'That each and every imported article, not enumerated in this act, which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any article enumerated in this act as chargeable with duty, shall pay the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned; and if any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied on such nonenumerated article the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it resembles, paying the highest rate of duty.'

In November, 1904, petitioner imported some sake at the port of San Francisco, and, following prior rulings, the collector, under the similitude section, held it similar to still wine containing more than 14 per of absolute alcohol, and dutiable accordingly at 50 cents per gallon, under paragraph 296 (p. 174). The petitioner protested and claimed that it was either a nonenumerated manufactured article, dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, under § 6 (p. 205), or, by reason of similitude to ale, porter, or beer, at 20 cents per gallon under paragraph 297 (p. 174). Both the board of general appraisers and the circuit court sustained the protest, feeling themselves constrained by the decision of the dircuit court for the southern district of New York (Nishimiya v. United States, 131 Fed. 650), and that of the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit (United States v. Nishimiya, 69 C. C. A. 588, 137 Fed. 396). On appeal, the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit reversed the decision of the circuit court and sustained the classification made by the collector.

Thomas Fitch, W. Wickham Smith, J. M. Thurston, Stanley Jackson, and J. J. Dunne for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 393-395 intentionally omitted]

Mr. J. C. McReynolds and Attorney General Wickersham for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from page 395 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court: