In the case of Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 1928, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government regarding a dispute over import duties on worsted cloth. The Botany Worsted Mills had argued that they were entitled to a refund for excessive import duties paid under protest due to an alleged misinterpretation by customs officials of Paragraph 1104(b) of Revenue Act (1913). However, the court held that this paragraph did not apply as it was intended for woolen cloths and not worsted cloths like those imported by Botany Mills. Therefore, no refund was warranted because there was no error in classification or rate application by customs officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of the Lever Act was too broad and not in line with its original intent. The justice contended that this section was designed to prevent profiteering during wartime by controlling prices, but it did not give unlimited power to regulate all trade practices. He believed that while some actions might indirectly affect market conditions, they should not be automatically considered as manipulative or unfair under this law unless there is a clear intention to create artificial scarcity or control prices unfairly. Furthermore, he emphasized that any ambiguity in such penal statutes should be interpreted narrowly and in favor of individuals being charged rather than broadly expanding government powers.