Court rules imported corks not "manufactured" under Section 25 Act. Transformation key for export drawback eligibility.

The court ruled that the special treatment of corks imported from Spain did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 25 of the Act of Congress, as the corks did not undergo a substantial transformation. Despite the treatment process, the corks retained their basic nature and were not considered articles manufactured in the United States. The court emphasized the necessity of transformation for an article to qualify as manufactured and be eligible for a drawback under the statute. The decision highlights the importance of distinctiveness and change in determining the eligibility of imported materials for claiming drawbacks on exported goods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Section 25 of the Act of Congress.
2. Determination of whether the special treatment of corks imported from Spain qualifies them as articles manufactured in the United States.
3. Analysis of whether corks used in bottling beer for exportation are eligible for drawback under Section 25.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Section 25 of the Act of Congress, which allows for a drawback on exported articles manufactured using imported materials. The court emphasized that while every change involves treatment, labor, and manipulation, not every change amounts to manufacture. The key criterion is transformation, where a new and distinct article emerges with a unique name, character, or use. This transformation is essential for an article to qualify as manufactured under the statute, as established in Hartranft v. Wiegmann. The court rejected the claim that the special treatment of corks in question amounted to manufacture, as the corks remained fundamentally unchanged in character and use after treatment.

2. The case also delved into whether the special treatment of corks imported from Spain rendered them articles manufactured in the United States. The claimant argued that the extensive treatment process, including washing, steaming, and chemical baths, transformed the corks into essential components for bottling beer for export. However, the court found that despite the treatment, the corks retained their basic nature and did not undergo a substantial transformation to qualify as articles manufactured in the United States. The court compared this scenario to a previous case involving bottles and corks for beer exportation, where a similar argument was rejected.

3. Lastly, the judgment addressed the eligibility of corks used in bottling beer for exportation to claim a drawback under Section 25. The court considered whether the exportation of beer, rather than corks or bottles, constituted an exported article entitled to a drawback. The court highlighted the meticulous process of treating corks to ensure the quality and safety of the exported beer, emphasizing the necessity of such treatment for successful exportation. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the corks, despite the treatment, did not meet the criteria for articles manufactured in the United States eligible for a drawback under the statute.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the term "manufacture," the impact of special treatment on imported corks, and the eligibility of corks used in bottling beer for a drawback under Section 25 of the Act of Congress. The court's decision underscores the importance of transformation and distinctiveness in determining whether imported materials qualify as manufactured articles for the purpose of claiming drawbacks on exported goods.

---