United States v. M. Rice & Co.

Background

An importer brought in immortelles (flowers) that arrived April 3, 1916. The customs collector liquidated the duty June 8, 1916, charging 60% under a tariff paragraph. The importer filed a written protest on July 7, 1916, saying the flowers should be taxed at 25% under another paragraph that lists palms or cut flowers. The Board of General Appraisers called the protest defective and denied relief. The Court of Customs Appeals reversed and entered judgment for the importer, and the case came to this Court because lower tribunals had reached different answers.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a protest that names a taxing paragraph is specific enough to let an importer rely on the law’s similitude (similarity) rule. The Court explained that protests must clearly notify the collector of the objection so the collector can investigate facts. But no special form is required. The Court reviewed prior conflicting decisions and held that when an importer specifies a taxing paragraph, the collector must also ask whether the imported article resembles the listed items and therefore belongs under that paragraph. The Court approved the Court of Customs Appeals’ reasoning and affirmed its judgment for the importer.

Real world impact

The ruling means importers who name the taxing paragraph in a timely protest can press a claim that their unlisted goods resemble listed items and deserve a lower rate. Customs collectors must look into resemblance questions when such paragraphs are cited. The decision resolves a long-standing split in earlier cases and clarifies practice for importers and customs officials.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes one member of the Court of Customs Appeals dissented below, and several lower tribunals had reached contrary views, which prompted review.