In the 1893 case Maddock v. Magone, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving customs duties. The plaintiff, John H. Maddock & Sons of England, imported earthenware into New York and was charged with duty under the Tariff Act of March 3rd, 1883 by defendant Daniel Magone, Collector of Customs for the Port of New York. The plaintiffs argued that their goods were overvalued and thus they were overcharged in duties; they sought to recover these excess charges from Magone. The court held that while there may have been an error in valuation at customs leading to excessive duty fees being levied against Maddocks' imports, it did not necessarily mean fraud or collusion had occurred as alleged by Maddocks'. Furthermore, it stated that if importers disagreed with valuations made at ports-of-entry they should appeal through administrative channels before resorting to litigation. Thusly ruling in favor of defendant Daniel Magone (Collector), this decision reinforced both tariff laws and procedures for contesting custom's decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Maddock v. Magone, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to tax all imported goods stored in bonded warehouses, but only those intended for domestic consumption. According to him, if a good is destined for re-exportation without being consumed domestically, it should not be subject to import duties as it does not contribute to domestic commerce or industry. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision which imposed taxes on such goods held in bonded warehouses even when they were meant solely for exportation purposes later on.