In the Auffmordt v. Hedden case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving import duties. The plaintiff, Julius Auffmordt, was an importer who brought in goods from Europe and argued that he had been overcharged by customs officials for his imported merchandise under the Tariff Act of March 3rd, 1883. He claimed that certain items were misclassified resulting in higher tariffs being imposed than what was due. However, Edward Hedden (the Collector of the Port of New York) insisted that they were correctly classified under existing law which resulted in higher duty rates. The court sided with Hedden stating that it is not their role to question or interpret how Congress classifies different types of goods for tariff purposes unless there's clear evidence showing gross injustice or error made by lawmakers when creating these classifications. This decision reinforced executive branch authority over trade policy and underscored judicial deference to legislative decisions regarding tariff classification.

In the dissenting opinion for Auffmordt v. Hedden, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a key distinction between sales and consignments. He contended that in a sale, ownership of goods is transferred immediately from seller to buyer, whereas in a consignment situation, ownership remains with the original owner until an actual sale takes place. Therefore, he believed that when goods are sent on commission or consignment basis from abroad to be sold by an agent in America who has no property interest in them but merely sells them as representative of foreign owners and remits proceeds back after deducting his commissions and charges; such transactions should not be considered imports subject to import duties under U.S customs laws. According to him this interpretation would align more closely with common understanding of terms 'import' & 'sale'.