In the case of Ker and Company v. Couden, 1911, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a lower court had jurisdiction over an appeal involving a customs duty dispute. The appellant, Ker and Company imported merchandise from India into Philadelphia but disputed the amount of duties assessed by Customs Collector Couden under paragraph 209 of the Tariff Act of July 24th,1909. They argued that their goods were not "manufactures" as defined in this act and thus should be subject to lesser duties than those imposed on them. The Board of General Appraisers upheld Couden's assessment leading to an appeal at Circuit Court which also affirmed it. The Supreme Court held that while circuit courts have jurisdiction over appeals from decisions made by boards regarding dutiable classifications or rates under tariff acts; they do not have authority when such disputes involve construction or application provisions within these acts themselves - like defining what constitutes 'manufacture'. Therefore, since this case involved interpretation/application provision (paragraph 209), rather than classification/rate issue; it fell outside Circuit Courts' purview hence its decision lacked validity.

In the dissenting opinion for Ker and Company v. Couden, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a tax on foreign bills of lading was unconstitutional. He argued that there was no constitutional prohibition against taxing an instrument used in commerce, even if it had an incidental effect on such commerce. Furthermore, he contended that this particular tax did not discriminate against foreign commerce as it applied equally to all bills of lading regardless of their origin or destination. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of the Constitution and his understanding of taxation principles, he believed the tax should have been upheld.