United States v. Morningstar
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (United States Customs Court 1943)
- Beiersdorf v. United States (United States Customs Court 1946)
- P. Beiersdorf & Co. v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1944)
- United States v. Coccaro (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The relevant paragraphs are both on the free list and read as follows:
“Par. 695. Wax, vegetable or mineral.”
“Par. 633. Paraffin.”
The importation is known as “carnauba wax substitute”; carnauba wax being a vegetable wax. The government’s chemist admits that, although the so-called mineral waxes are not regarded as waxes in the chemical sense, paraffin belongs to that group. Evidently Congress used the words “mineral wax” in their popular sense; otherwise, they would cover nothing. The article in question is compounded of carnauba wax and paraffin, and when completed is to all appearance a waxy substance, used for the same purpose as are other waxes, and containing no animal wax. We concur with the board and the Circuit Court.
The decision is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.