In the case of Early & Daniel Company v. United States, 1925, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government regarding a dispute over tariff classification. The Early & Daniel Company imported hemp and argued that it should be classified under "hemp unmanufactured" which had lower duties according to Tariff Act of 1909. However, the customs officials classified it as "hemp hackled" which attracted higher duties due to its processed nature. The company sued for refund arguing that their import was not 'hackled' but rather 'broken', a less intensive process than hackling hence should attract lesser duty rates. The court held that even though there might have been some differences between ‘breaking’ and ‘hackling’, they were not significant enough to warrant different classifications under the Tariff Act since both processes resulted in similar products ready for spinning into yarn or rope without further processing. Therefore, regardless of whether this particular hemp was broken or hackled, it fell within “hemp hackled” category attracting higher duty rates as per Tariff Act provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Early & Daniel Company v. United States, it was argued that the government did not have a right to seize and sell perishable goods without giving notice or an opportunity for a hearing to the owner of those goods. The dissenting justices believed this violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. They contended that while there may be exceptions in cases where public health is at risk, such as with diseased cattle or rotten food, these exceptions should not apply when there is no immediate danger present. In this case, they felt that since tobacco does not pose an immediate threat to public safety like diseased animals might do, its seizure and sale by the government without prior notification was unconstitutional.