In the 1892 case of Passavant v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving import duties. The plaintiff, Passavant, imported iron bands and claimed they should be classified under "iron in bars" which had a lower duty rate than "hoop or band iron." However, customs officials disagreed and imposed higher duties based on their classification as hoop or band iron. The court held that despite being flat like bars rather than rounded like hoops or bands, these items were used for purposes similar to those of hoop/band irons (i.e., binding barrels). Therefore they fell within the category of “hoop or band” irons for tariff purposes. This decision affirmed that it was not just physical characteristics but also intended use that determined an item's classification for import duties.

In the dissenting opinion for Passavant v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without due process of law. He contended that while it was true that Congress had given customs officials broad powers to search and seize goods suspected of being imported illegally, this power should not extend to seizing property without any evidence or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The majority's decision, he believed, violated fundamental principles of justice by allowing arbitrary seizures based on mere speculation rather than concrete proof. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of the relevant statutes and felt they were overstepping their bounds by expanding governmental authority in such a way.