Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United States
In Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United States, 207 U.S. 556, 28 S.Ct. 204, 52 L.Ed. 336 (1908), corks were extensively treated to prepare them for use in beverage containers.
This treatment included examining and sorting the corks, branding the corks with the date and name of the beverage, cleaning the corks with a patented fan, washing, steaming and drying the corks, and, finally, bathing the corks in glycerin and alcohol. Id. at 559, 28 S.Ct. 204.
Irrespective of the significant investment in the corks, the Supreme Court held that they had not been manufactured in the United States. Id. at 563, 28 S.Ct. 204.
In so holding, the Court examined the meaning of "manufacture" and concluded that "manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labor and manipulation. But something more is necessary.... There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character or use." Id. at 562, 28 S.Ct. 204.
In Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n. v. United States, 207 U.S. 556, 28 S.Ct. 204, 52 L.Ed. 336 (1908), the Supreme Court held that there must be some transformation so that a new and different article emerges having a distinctive name, character and use in order for a manufacturer to be entitled to drawbacks under section 25 of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890. 207 U.S. at 562, 28 S.Ct. at 206.
Merely subjecting imported articles, such as corks, to a cleansing and coating process that adapts them to a special use does not amount to manufacturing them within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 559 n. 1, 28 S.Ct. at 205 n. 1.