In the 1934 case Central Vermont Transportation Co. v. Durning, Collector of Customs, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Central Vermont Transportation Company (CVTC). The dispute arose when CVTC imported goods from Canada into New York via its ferry service and was subsequently charged with import duties by Durning, a customs collector. CVTC argued that it should not be subject to these charges as they were merely transporting goods for others and did not own them themselves. The court agreed with this argument stating that under the Tariff Act of 1922, only "importers" are required to pay duty on imported merchandise - defined as those who bring goods from a foreign country into the United States with intent to sell or use them here. Since CVTC did not intend to sell or use these items but simply transported them for other parties, they could not be classified as an importer under this law.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Vermont Transportation Co. v. Durning, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. He contended that a state has no power to regulate interstate commerce directly or indirectly by imposing taxes on goods in transit from one state to another, even if those goods are temporarily stored within its borders before being transported further. According to him, this principle should apply regardless of whether such taxation is discriminatory against out-of-state businesses or not; it simply cannot be done because it interferes with free trade among states as intended by framers of Constitution. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s view that New York could tax imported liquor while it was still in original packages and had not yet been mixed into general mass of property within state.