Murphy, Morris & Co. v. Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In September 1904, plaintiffs imported paper labels and wrappers for cigars and cigar boxes into the Philippine Islands. The Collector of Customs classified these labels under paragraph 183(d) of Act No. 230 (Tariff Revision Law) at a rate of 80 cents per kilo, net weight. Procedural History: The plaintiffs protested this classification, arguing the labels should fall under paragraph 183(c) at 40 cents per kilo. The Collector of Customs overruled the protest, holding that the labels, with ten colors plus bronze (counted as three printings) and embossing, constituted thirteen printings, thus falling under paragraph 183(d) as having 'more than thirteen printings' when embossing is considered a printing process. The Court of Customs Appeals affirmed this, but its decision was lost. The case was transferred to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the Collector's decision. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the embossing on the labels should be considered a 'printing' for tariff classification purposes.
Issue(s)
Whether the embossing of labels constitutes 'printing' within the meaning of paragraph 183 of the Tariff Revision Law. Whether the labels, with thirteen printings (ten colors + bronze counted as three) and embossing, should be classified under paragraph 183(c) or 183(d).
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, upholding the classification of the labels under paragraph 183(d) of the Tariff Revision Law. The protest was overruled and denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether embossing constitutes 'printing': The Court held that the term 'printing' as used in paragraph 183 of the Tariff Revision Law denotes the number of impressions received or the number of times the article was run through the press. The Court cited definitions from Webster, Worcester, McElrath, Homans, and Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary to support the interpretation that 'printing' includes making an impression by pressure, even if no ink is used, as in the case of embossing. The Supreme Court of the United States case of Arthur vs. Moller was also cited, stating that 'print' or 'printing' includes various forms of figures or characters impressed on a yielding surface. Therefore, the process of embossing was properly considered a process of 'printing' for tariff classification purposes. On the classification of the labels: The labels in question had eleven distinct colors, one of which was bronze, which under the law was counted as three printings, totaling thirteen printings. The labels were also embossed. The Court agreed with the Collector of Customs and the Court of First Instance that embossing should be counted as a printing process. Consequently, the labels were considered to have fourteen printings (thirteen from colors/bronze plus one for embossing), thus falling under paragraph 183(d) which applies to articles with 'more than thirteen printings'. The plaintiffs' contention that embossing should not be regarded as printing was rejected.
Main Doctrine
The process of embossing labels, which involves making an impression upon a surface by pressure, is considered a form of 'printing' for the purposes of tariff classification under laws that define 'printing' based on the number of impressions or times an article is run through a press.